On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Added parsing code and integrated it into clang-check (which I'm now >>>> heavily testing in my vim session :) >>>> >>>> As a nice side effect this gives us a beautiful way to write FileCheck >>>> integration tests for clang tools. >>>> I'd still like to be able to pull something out that encapsulates most >>>> of the command line parsing for tools, so it's less code, but I want >>>> to leave that for later. >>> >>> Patch generally looks good, although this… >>> >>> +std::vector<CompileCommand> >>> +FixedCompilationDatabase::getCompileCommands(StringRef FilePath) const { >>> + std::vector<CompileCommand> Result(CompileCommands); >>> + Result[0].CommandLine.push_back(FilePath); >>> + return Result; >>> +} >>> >>> doesn't actually seem right. What if the CompileCommands contains multiple >>> source files, e.g., >>> >>> clang-check -- a.cpp b.cpp >>> >>> shouldn't we filter out the other non-source files, or return an empty >>> compile command if the command line didn't specify the given file name >>> (say, if the CompilationDatabase is asked to return a compile command for >>> c.cpp)? >> >> I tried to document that in the chandler-length comments of the >> FixedCompilationDatabase, but apparently I failed :) > > I just missed it, sorry. > >> The idea is that you'll specify the TUs to work on, the same way you >> do for other clang tools, before the "--". >> Your example would be >> clang-check . a.cpp b.cpp -- -c ... > > > I can live with that, although I'll note that it's still a little unfortunate > that I can't drop in "clang-check" as if it were a compiler and have it do > the right thing.
Yep, I generally agree. The problem is that then we have to be able to parse a compile command line, which according to Chandler means to let the Driver create a Compiler instance, and then using that to drive the tool. I'm not sure how this would turn out architecture wise, and I don't expect it to be very important, as, if you want to run the tool like a compiler, just use a clang plugin - that's what they're really good at :) Cheers, /Manuel _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
