omtcyfz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#511202, @bcraig wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#511187, @omtcyfz wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#510234, @alexshap wrote: > > > > > > I do think that an automated tool will do a better job of changing > > > > field orderings in a non-breaking way than most people would, mostly > > > > due to initializer lists. > > > > > > > > > yeah, that was the original motivation > > > > > > How does that justify its current state, in which it does breaks codebases > > with more than 1 TU? > > > Yeah, that aspect probably needs work :). Accepting a compilation database > seems like a good way to correct that. Accepting compilation database doesn't solve the problem completely. Most of the existing Clang-based tools accept compilation database, but they do not pass information between translation units, which is the most important part. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
