Any thoughts on this design? Cheers, Daniel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote: > I moved the class-comment back and properly propagated the error instead > of printing it to outs(). I don't know about using Diagnostics. Could we > get to that in a different patch to clearly separate those changes? > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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
