ilya-biryukov added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46751#1095894, @malaperle wrote:
> Can there be an option for this? This seems very library specific and could > break other code bases. Ideally, there would be a generic mechanism for this > kind of filtering, i.e. specify a pattern of excluded files or symbol names. > But I understand this would be cumbersome because you want to filter only > *some* symbol names in *some* files, so it would be difficult for users to > specify this intersection of conditions on command-line arguments, for > example. I think this needs to be discussed a bit more or have this turned > off by default (with an option to turn on!) until there is a more general > solution for this kind of filtering. Having user-configurable filtering may certainly be useful, but requires some design to get right. And even if we have it, I think there's value in automatically handling popular frameworks, unless we know it might break other code **in practice**. E.g., for protobuf, we know that generated headers always end with `.proto.h`. We could also check for comments that proto compiler tends to put into the generated files to be sure. If we do that, I feel it's better to have the filtering for protos **enabled** by default, since there's almost zero chance that people had a file that ends with `.proto.h` and put a proto compiler comment into it. But even the `.proto.h` ending seems like a good enough indication. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D46751 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
