alexfh added a comment.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for working on this. The script has been begging for refactoring for
a while ;) A couple of initial comments, and while I'm looking further into
into this patch, could you find other possible usages (in currently existing
tests) of the new functionality in check_clang_tidy.py?
Thanks!
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py:82
@@ +81,3 @@
+ try:
+ clang_tidy_output = \
+ subprocess.check_output(args, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT).decode()
----------------
Looks like this function is used not only for clang-tidy. Maybe this variable
should be named more generically?
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py:122
@@ -40,2 +121,3 @@
parser.add_argument('-resource-dir')
+ parser.add_argument('--header-filter')
parser.add_argument('input_file_name')
----------------
There's no need for a separate argument for this. The script passes all
arguments after a `--` to clang-tidy, so you can just append `--
-header-filter=... -- -std=c++11` to the RUN: line in the test.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/check_clang_tidy.py:152
@@ -68,4 +151,3 @@
- has_check_fixes = input_text.find('CHECK-FIXES') >= 0
- has_check_messages = input_text.find('CHECK-MESSAGES') >= 0
+ has_check_fixes, has_check_messages = has_checks(input_text)
----------------
This function doesn't look like a particularly useful one: 5 lines of code
instead of 2 lines and an unclear interface (in which order do the two bools
come?). Please revert this part.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16953
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
