kbobyrev added a comment. In D123488#3444900 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123488#3444900>, @dsanders11 wrote:
> Cool stuff! Chiming in randomly here, but I've been keeping a loose eye on > the progress of IncludeCleaner. > > I've been using IncludeCleaner to power include cleanup in the Chromium code > base for the past few months, and have built Python scripts around it so I > can more efficiently use it at a code base level. You can find all that fun > stuff on my repo: https://github.com/dsanders11/chromium-include-cleanup > > In my usages, I've found there are three categories of ignores I need (you > can see my ongoing list of them in the config file: > https://github.com/dsanders11/chromium-include-cleanup/blob/main/configs/chromium.json): > > - Skip over a file entirely and don't provide any diagnostics for it. This is > useful to ignore umbrella headers, without needing to ignore the headers > included in that umbrella header. > - Ignore diagnostics for a particular header, which is what is implemented > here so far. > - Ignore an include edge (filename, header). This is useful for cases where > it's a spurious diagnostic, like when the usage is inside of a macro > definition, so IncludeCleaner thinks it is unused but it is not. > > This isn't entirely applicable here, but could be insightful: I initially I > had my filtering mechanism in the script which ran clangd over the source > files, but I found that it was better for my needs to decouple the filtering > from the generating the diagnostics. Main reason being that generating the > diagnostics for all 80k files in the Chromium code base takes hours to run, > so if I found some new ignores I wanted to add, I'd have to do another 7 hour > run (on the hardware I'm using), which wasn't efficient. So I let the many > script output all diagnostics, and then I filter after the fact, letting me > tweak the filtering without needing to re-run the whole thing. So for my own > needs I'll probably stick with doing the filtering after the fact, even if > it's built-in. Not too applicable for IncludeCleaner usage through say VS > Code, but there are different challenges when doing it at code base level. Hi David! This is really interesting, thank you very much for sharing! This is a really exciting use case and I'll look into the code that you have! I think you might be interested in a more generic effort we're currently investing into: we want to make Include Cleaner a library and make it possible for the users to run it from Clang-Tidy and standalone tools (https://reviews.llvm.org/D121593). Is that something that would be potentially interesting to you? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123488/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123488 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
