On Jan 30, 2014, at 16:34 , Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> wrote:
> But maybe I'm just worried about people doing this in general, and shouldn't > worry about the specific case of clang-tidy, which will probably get these > answers right and be able to evolve with the analyzer core. Still, once > Pandora's Box is opened, it can't easily be closed again, and we'd really > like external consumers of path diagnostics to build tools that consume a > standard output format rather than needing a custom build of Clang to do it. > > The difference between a tool statically linked with clang and a standalone > tool consuming analyzer's output in some format is huge, and I don't think > sane people would choose the former, if they only need to consumer analyzer's > output in some form. All right, you've convinced me. I'll take a look at the names patch, but this one is fine. Let's get more analyzer users! :-) Jordan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
