JonasToth added a comment. Thank you for the comment!
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54141#1288809, @steveire wrote: > This feature seems like a good idea. I started writing it too some months > ago, but then I changed tactic and worked on distributing the refactor over > the network instead. As far as I know, your deduplication would not work with > a distributed environment. I agree that it would probably not work. It might enable a two-stage deduplication, but I don't know if that would be viable. > However, it seems that both features can exist. > > You use a regex to parse the clang output. Why not use the > already-machine-readable yaml output and de-duplicate based on that? I think > the design would be something like: > > - Run clang-tidy in a quiet mode which only exports yaml and does not issue > diagnostics > - Read the yaml in your python script > - Add the entries to your already-seen cache > - For any entry which was not already there > - Write the entries to a new yaml file > - Use clang-apply-replacements --issue-diags the_new_file.yaml to actually > cause the new diagnostics to be issued (they were omitted from the clang-tidy > run). > > This avoids fragile parsing of the output from clang, instead relying on > the machine-readable format. In principle this approach seems more robust and I am not claiming my approach is robust at all :) The point hokein raised should be considered first in my opinion. If clang-tidy itself is already parallel we should definitely deduplicate there. This is something I would put more effort in. The proposed solution is more a hack to get my buildbot running and find transformation bugs and provide real-world data for checks we implement. :) > I think clang-apply-replacements already does de-duplication, so it's > possible that could take more responsibility. Yes, the emitted fixes are deduplicated but i think we need something even if no fixes are involved. > Also, I think your test content is too big. I suggest trying to write more > contained tests for this. I wanted to have a mix of both real snippets and some unit-tests on short examples. Do you think its enough if i shorten the list of fields that the CSA output contains for the padding checker? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D54141 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
