ioeric added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/clang/Tooling/Tooling.h:331 + /// \returns 0 on success; 1 if any error occured; 2 if there is no error but + /// some files are skipped due to missing compile commands. int run(ToolAction *Action); ---------------- hokein wrote: > I'm not sure whether this new behavior will cause any regression issues (many > tools invoke this method like `if (Tool.run(...))`) > > * before the patch, return 0 if some files are skipped (we think it succeeds) > * after the patch, return 2 if some files are skipped (we think it fails) > > Maybe @bkramer has more words on it? I should have mentioned in the path summary that I think this would not regress tools. I checked call sites of this API. I think it's reasonable for most tools to treat skipping files as failure (if they care about failure; some tools simply ignore the status code). Tools that care about this are already ignoring the failures (e.g. https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/master/tools/clang-refactor/ClangRefactor.cpp#L630). But there might be something that I am missing. I would certainly like more opinions on this. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D42361 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
