lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46602#1092902, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46602#1092890, @alexfh wrote: > > > Roman, it looks to me that a simpler storage scheme would be sufficient. > > For example, YYYYMMDDhhmmss-InputFileName.cpp.csv. > > Main things are: > > > > 1. include a timestamp, so there's no need to overwrite old results, > > > Of the input source file? > > I don't like this, because when working on trying to improve the performance > of the check, > one wouldn't touch the source file, only the clang-tidy sources. So either > you would > have to `touch` sources (and if they are not writable?), or remove `.csv` > beforehand, > or not output to file, but redirect output. ... also, a new report with a new name will be created each time the filetime changes, so not only will it be fun from tooling point of view, but it will also leave old reports in-place.. > Neither of these possibilities sound great to me. > >> 2. include just the name of the file without any parent directories, > > That won't work, there are duplicate filenames even in LLVM. > > $ find -iname Path.cpp > ./lib/Support/Path.cpp > ./unittests/Support/Path.cpp > > > > >> 3. put all outputs into the same directory. This way we wouldn't have to >> create a directory structure and think about stripping a certain prefix >> (btw, utilities like patch just specify the number of path components to >> remove from the start, not the actual substring). WDYT? > > I'm not particularly looking forward to having being forced to have n > thousands of reports in a single directory :) Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D46602 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
