vmiklos updated this revision to Diff 64204.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21814
Files:
clang-rename/tool/ClangRename.cpp
test/clang-rename/ClassFindByName.cpp
test/clang-rename/ClassReplacements.cpp
test/clang-rename/ClassSimpleRenaming.cpp
test/clang-rename/ClassTest.cpp
test/clang-rena
vmiklos added a comment.
I'm a bit confused.
On one hand, I want to use tooling::CommonOptionsParser to parse the options,
which needs a cl::OptionCategory as a parameter.
On the other hand, I want to parse the options, based on that I'll know what
subcommand was requested, and then I can choo
klimek added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21814#485410, @vmiklos wrote:
> The alternative is to change the `CommonOptionsParser` ctor to take a vector
> of `OptionCategory&`, and in that case we can add the -extra-arg-before and
> other options to all subcommands, but that means he'l
vmiklos added a comment.
The alternative is to change the `CommonOptionsParser` ctor to take a vector of
`OptionCategory&`, and in that case we can add the -extra-arg-before and other
options to all subcommands, but that means he'll have to adapt all client code,
i.e. all tools in clang-tools-e
klimek added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21814#478879, @vmiklos wrote:
> As far as I see `tooling::CommonOptionsParser` (in its current form) does not
> handle cl::SubCommand instances. Should I fix that or would it be OK to
> switch to using `cl::ParseCommandLineOptions` directly i
vmiklos added a comment.
As far as I see `tooling::CommonOptionsParser` (in its current form) does not
handle cl::SubCommand instances. Should I fix that or would it be OK to switch
to using `cl::ParseCommandLineOptions` directly in clang-rename?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21814
_
omtcyf0 added a comment.
Manuel,
> I think it's important to note that Miklos is probably a user, otherwise I'd
> guess he wouldn't add those features.
Sure. But there are different kinds of users :) IIRC there's a discussion in
cfe-def called "Clang should natively support Fortran" or someth
klimek added a comment.
Kirill, I think it's important to note that Miklos is probably a user,
otherwise I'd guess he wouldn't add those features.
Generally, we also internally have a (large scale) simplified rename tool that
allows renaming multiple things in a code base at once; it is definite
omtcyf0 added a comment.
Miklos, thanks for the feedback!
Hm, I'm not sure about a) and b) camps here. I think we can have both. It may
be that I haven't looked too much into the code or I am missing something, but
so far both integration and cross-TU analysis seem OK together in one tool as
f
vmiklos added a comment.
Kirill: OK, so you're in the camp marked as b) by Manuel. Sure, the vim
integration is nice (I'm also a vim user), now that you mentioned it, I need to
go and try it myself. ;-) Given the above patch, probably it's obvious that I'm
more in camp a). I don't insist on hav
omtcyf0 added a subscriber: omtcyf0.
omtcyf0 added a comment.
Hi @vmiklos!
Thank you very much for contributing to clang-rename.
The patch looks nice, but it conflicts with my understanding of the view on
what the tool should do.
Generally, I do not support the idea of adding an option to perf
klimek added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21814#476572, @bkramer wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21814#475322, @klimek wrote:
>
> > I think we really want 2 tools:
> > a) one that is optimized for oldname->newname renames, and supports the
> > multi-TU case really well
> > b) on
bkramer added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21814#475322, @klimek wrote:
> I think we really want 2 tools:
> a) one that is optimized for oldname->newname renames, and supports the
> multi-TU case really well
> b) one that is meant to be integrated with editors and works mainly off of
klimek added a reviewer: bkramer.
klimek added a comment.
I think we really want 2 tools:
a) one that is optimized for oldname->newname renames, and supports the
multi-TU case really well
b) one that is meant to be integrated with editors and works mainly off of a
location in a file
I'm a bit t
vmiklos added a comment.
Manuel, do you have an opinion on this, please?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
vmiklos created this revision.
vmiklos added a reviewer: klimek.
vmiklos added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
This way parsing the source input multiple times for multiple renames can be
avoided.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21814
Files:
clang-rename/RenamingAction.cpp
clang-rename/RenamingAction.h
16 matches
Mail list logo
