On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:40:25PM +0000, Manuel Klimek via Phabricator via cfe-commits wrote: > klimek added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34440#809581, @vladimir.plyashkun wrote: > > > > Are there any concerns using the alternative? > > > > I can't say that it's a big problems, but i think that: > > //CompilationDatabase.json// is more //CMake //specific format. > > It can be generated automatically by //CMake//, while other build systems > > may not do it. > > So we need to generate it on the fly (by tool or by hand), which also can > > lead to hidden problems due to different formats, different escaping rules, > > etc. > > I think it's always good to have one unified format. > > > The compilation database is most certainly not cmake specific. We > designed it in clang, and then implemented it in cmake as an example, > because that's the most widely used C++ build system we were aware of > (aside from autotools, which we didn't want to touch :). There are > ways to create it from other build systems (ninja has support, and > there are tools that provide generic support to intercept compiles).
Don't use interceptors, just use -MJ. It should be very easy to hook up into any build system that can also use -MM etc. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
