Szelethus added a comment. In D67420#1666578 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67420#1666578>, @NoQ wrote:
> In D67420#1666141 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67420#1666141>, @Szelethus wrote: > > > I do! > > > Hmm, it sounds like you want to force both Clang frontend and Clang-Tidy to > use the same set of flags to control these options (?) Much like > `-analyzer-config`, these flags will have different "style" compared to other > flags in the tool. Which is probably not too bad for hidden frontend flags > that control the Analyzer because they're anyway set by a separate GUI > checkbox, but the inconsistency with other flags would be super glaring in > case of Clang-Tidy CLI. Do we really want to go in that direction? I'll be > much more comfortable with letting each tool deal with its flags the way it > prefers - this doesn't look like a good place for code reuse to me. There are two things I wanted to touch on, but kinda failed to emphasize it. First is the topic of whether `-analyzer-config` flags are fitting for a feature no longer specific to the analyzer, and the second is similar in nature, but in the actual code -- it doesn't doesn't feel natural to me that `AnalyzerOptions` is required to construct this, while at the same time we're trying to make diagnostics construction independent of the analyzer. But I really wouldn't like to overengineer this just for the sake of it :^) On the first, I'm kinda meh, even if we went for it, it would be a separate revision I guess, but the second has me concerned, unless I'm not following something right. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67420/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67420 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
