Could you mark it 'accepted' in Phabricator? http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2556
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
