On 2 Jan 2014 20:06, "Manuel Klimek" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > lg. > > > ================ > Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.h:107-109 > @@ +106,5 @@ > +/// > +/// FIXME: Ideally we'd want to build a more generic way to use > +/// \c FrontendAction based checkers in clang-tidy, but that needs some > +/// preparation work first. > +class ClangTidyAction : public ASTFrontendAction { > ---------------- > Alexander Kornienko wrote: > > Manuel Klimek wrote: > > > Why? > > I'm not sure what exactly did you mean when writing this, and I was thinking already about asking you, if this comment is still applicable. > Yea, I don't understand my own fixme any more... Probably we should delete it :) > > ================ > Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.h:110 > @@ +109,3 @@ > + /// \brief Returns an action that runs the specified clang-tidy checks. > + virtual FrontendAction *create() LLVM_OVERRIDE; > + > ---------------- > Cool. One question is whether it's worth having this small function (with the trivial class) in here at all. Do we expect this to be called outside of clang-tidy itself?
It's already called somewhere in tooling via the FrontendActionFactory interface. What would be a better alternative to this? > > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2481 > > BRANCH > svn > > ARCANIST PROJECT > clang-tools-extra
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
