ioeric added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clangd/ClangdUnit.cpp:429
+ const auto &CommandLine = Inputs.CompileCommand.CommandLine;
+ for (size_t I = 0, E = CommandLine.size(); I != E; I++) {
+ // According to https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangPlugins.html
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > ioeric wrote:
> > > This doesn't seem to be clangd specific; clang-tidy seems to have the
> > > same issue. Could we share the filtering logic (e.g. in
> > > lib/Tooling/ArgumentsAdjusters.cpp)?
> > We need a comment mentioning that we are filtering out the plugin options
> > and why we're doing that here
> +1 to the suggestion.
> WDYT about landing it into clangd as a quick workaround and moving into
> tooling later?
> The reason I think it might be better is because that would unblock usage of
> clangd in Chromium.
> WDYT about landing it into clangd as a quick workaround and moving into
> tooling later?
> The reason I think it might be better is because that would unblock usage of
> clangd in Chromium.
I don't see why it would take much more effort to move the shared logic into
tooling now?
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56841/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56841
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
