On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]>wrote:
> Could you mark it 'accepted' in Phabricator? > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2556 > There is no need for anybody to mark anything in phab :) LG on the mailing list is enough... > > Thanks! > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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
