lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46602#1095960, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46602#1092902, @lebedev.ri wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46602#1092890, @alexfh wrote: > > > > > Roman, it looks to me that a simpler storage scheme would be sufficient. > > > For example, YYYYMMDDhhmmss-InputFileName.cpp.csv. > > > Main things are: > > > > > > 1. include a timestamp, so there's no need to overwrite old results, > > > > > > Of the input source file? > > > No, current timestamp, when each profile gets dumped. Ah. Then i don't understand this at all. Why would we want to do that, exactly? Just so that we can avoid creating directory structure? Why do we want to avoid that? >>> 2. include just the name of the file without any parent directories, >> >> That won't work, there are duplicate filenames even in LLVM. > > That's why I suggested to include a timestamp. Each result file will get a > unique timestamp as a part of its name (unless the resolution of the > timestamp is too coarse - compared to clang-tidy run time - to allow > collisions). > >> $ find -iname Path.cpp >> ./lib/Support/Path.cpp >> ./unittests/Support/Path.cpp >> >> > 3. put all outputs into the same directory. This way we wouldn't have to >> create a directory structure and think about stripping a certain prefix >> (btw, utilities like patch just specify the number of path components to >> remove from the start, not the actual substring). WDYT? >> >> I'm not particularly looking forward to having being forced to have n >> thousands of reports in a single directory :) > > What kind of problems do you expect to have with this? Are you going to look > at the result files manually or use a script to aggregate them? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D46602 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
