================ Comment at: lib/Tooling/CommonOptionsParser.cpp:141-142 @@ -93,2 +140,4 @@ } + Compilations = llvm::make_unique<ArgumentsAdjustingCompilations>( + std::move(Compilations), ArgsBefore, ArgsAfter); } ---------------- alexfh wrote: > klimek wrote: > > It seems to me like we'd want either this to take an ArgumentAdjuster > > instead of hard-coding to the args-before / args-after case? > This would make sense, if we make this compilation database wrapper public. > But for this specific case the total amount of code is not larger than what > would be needed for the ArgumentsAdjuster-based variant. Well, if the code is not much larger, I'd go with the variant that fits the names better... Or do you have a specific reason for not handing in an argument adjuster? To me it was just unexpected when reading the code...
http://reviews.llvm.org/D6073 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
