janosimas added a comment.
I was thinking about the usage of `--` and `-extra-arg`, don't they do the same
thing?
To be honest, for me, the current behavior of `--` doesn't make much sense. If
there is a use case for `-extra-arg-before` and `-extra-arg`, they are much
more clearer in intent.
For me, `--` usual behavior would be pass by options for the first next
program, `clang-tidy` in this case.
---
Is there a reason to limit how the flags a passed to `clang-tidy`?
Why not pass all options as if using `clang-tidy` and only threat special cases
and default values?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/tool/clang-tidy-diff.py:123-130
if args.fix:
command.append('-fix')
if args.checks != '':
command.append('-checks=' + quote + args.checks + quote)
if args.quiet:
command.append('-quiet')
if args.build_path is not None:
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> janosimas wrote:
> > janosimas wrote:
> > > alexfh wrote:
> > > > If we make the script leave out the `--` flag, we should stop
> > > > forwarding these flags and the `extra_arg(_before)?` below. Otherwise
> > > > it's too confusing (should one place -fix before `--` or after? what
> > > > about `-warnings-as-errors`?).
> > > >
> > > > Please also update the usage example at the top.
> > > What about keep the current `--` behavior and add a new flag
> > > `-extra-tidy-flags` ?
> > `-extra-tidy-arg` to maintain consistency.
> What's the benefit of `-extra-tidy-arg` compared to pass-by arguments?
`-extra-tidy-arg` would keep the current `--` behavior and cover other cases of
extra flags not supported by this script.
I was worried about how changing the behavior would affect people that already
using it.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49864
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
