On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:04 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > That's not right. What if I'm running my tool from the command line? >> > Better to just take those out of the compilation database. >> >> I've a slight tendency to agree - though I'm open to >> correction/countersuggestion: the compilation database only really >> needs the things that affect compilation. User-features (error limit? >> caret diagnostics? color diagnostics?) don't seem relevant to the >> database, but perhaps there's a use case I've not thought of. (or that >> no one has thought of - which would advocate in favor of leaving them >> in "just in case", perhaps) > > > Does it mean that you would better let compilation database filter out > flags? I'd say that this is not compilation database's responsibility. And > it will be needed in every compilation database implementation.
The multiple implementation issue is a valid concern. Pity there's no way for Clang to tell the caller which args are relevant or somesuch. Oh well. btw, this is http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13607 if you want to check that/resolve it when this is addressed. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
