On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Kim Gräsman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Manuel, > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Ah, and then build two different binaries out of it? One stand-alone > >> tool and one Clang plugin dylib? Or can they be combined into the same > >> binary? That would be my preference, of course, but I can't quite see > >> the big picture for all the details at this point. > > > > Yes, you'd have one binary and one dylib (which you'd give to clang as > > plugin during the normal build). > > The cool thing about that solution is that you can run it next to the > build > > on every build - you don't need a special tool run. > > Interesting input, I'll give it a try. > > Though I think IWYU was purposefully designed to NOT run together with > a normal build because > > 1) you couldn't re-run it without an intervening ``make clean`` > 2) it would be take at least as long as building the software and if > you're not IWYU-clean, that's not something you want to do > unnecessarily :-) > > I wasn't around when the current strategy was set, but I think it was > directed by these two goals and the absence of the Tooling library at > the time. > I understood it in a way that you wanted to run IWYU as part of a make-build, and that was why you wanted to not run it as a standalone tool with a compilation db. I'm confused now :) > > Sincere thanks for the good information, though, I have more to work from! > > - Kim >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
