I'd like the class-comment for JSONCompilationDatabase to still include what's now in the file comment, so it's visible in doxygen.
Also, I'd prefer to use a result value to capture the error message instead of llvm::outs'ing in findCompilationDatabaseFromDirectory. Perhaps we should also switch this to Diagnostics? Cheers, /Manuel On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote: > Attached is a patch to do most of this restructuring, kindly asking for > review. > > In particular, it does: > - Restructure the compilation database architecture to using LLVM's registry > concept. It should now be possible to link in additional compilation > databases. > - Separate the JSONCompilationDatabase from CompilationDatabase to show the > loose coupling and serve as an example. > > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 07/19/2012 01:32 PM, Manuel Klimek wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >> >> >>> That said, the latest version of CMake already has support for JSON + >> >>> Ninja -- we didn't contribute it, so I don't know what strategy they >> >>> followed, but you should look at that and talk to the ninja and CMake >> >>> developers before going too far here. >> >>> >> >> I wrote it and pretty much followed the same thing Manuel did in the >> >> Makefile generator. >> >> >> >> The commit which actually adds the feature is trivial: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=db839bec7d076b54c5e9ad0d19386a26557a509e >> >> >> >> Manuel mentioned before that he'd like to see ninja being able to >> >> generate a >> >> database without cmake too though: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/3678/focus=3697 >> >> >> >> As Chandler said, it's not in a release yet, but will be in the next >> >> release >> >> in a few weeks. Feel free to test the release candidate (I would >> >> appreciate >> >> if you did) >> > I know multiple people who are refusing to work without this any more, >> > I've been using it since it landed in "next". So consider this part >> > pretty well tested (at least on the llvm codebase). >> > >> >> Good to hear :) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Steve. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
