omtcyfz added a subscriber: omtcyfz. omtcyfz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#509047, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> May be this could be Clang-rename mode? Definitely not. I think this is in scope of `clang-tidy`. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#509076, @compnerd wrote: > This isn't really a renaming tool per se. If you squint really hard, yes, it > does rename fields. But, if we really want to save space, perhaps we should > collapse all the tools into `clang-tidy` or create a new `clang-refactor` > tool and just make the other things a part of that tool in various modes > (rename, reorder-fields, extract, etc) via sub-commands (a la git). However, > I think thats a broader design decision which could be made outside the > context of this change. However, if the concern is purely for install-time, > we could add components to the CMake install to control which of the extra > tools are built (note that this change doesn't even install the new binary!). God, no. Please don't try to add over9000 tools. IMO this perfectly fits into `clang-tidy` scope. And it's not really `refactoring`. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
