On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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... > Sure there's no need. I just use Phab's arcanist tool, which needs less explanations when committing an accepted patch. So it's better when the status is updated in Phab, if it doesn't inconvenience the reviewer. > > >> >> 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
