klimek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34440#812938, @vladimir.plyashkun wrote:
> > If you want one unified format, the compilation database is it. > > Is the `clang-tidy ... -- <args>` meant to be more or less a drop-in > replacement for `clang <args>` (arguments-wise)? > If yes, this expansion of response files here is an another step in this > direction. Yes. I'm still confused why in this case clang-tidy @file -- would be expected to expand the response file? Am I missing something? > Our only concerns are the internal ones (instead of using our well-tested > response file implementation, we have to do something similar but different > with JSON-based compilation database format). > Obviously, it is possible to use it, and if this patch won't be accepted, we > would. I don't understand this. Can you elaborate? > But then, again, I see this change as a positive by itself and don't really > understand why the compiler driver should expand response arguments and the > fixed compilation database shouldn't. > > As IDE developers we don't have full control on the format of compiler > options. > They come from users in free form which compiler can understand. > From the implementation view it would be more transparent and efficient to > transfer them in the original form to Clang-Tidy (instead of generating > intermediate files). Why are intermediate files (or your own implementation of a CompilationDatabase) not in the "original form". What *is* the original form? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D34440 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits