Applied your patch, modified it a bit, and submitted r254599. Thanks!
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:15 AM Russell Wallace
wrote:
> Okay - I don't understand how the class works well enough to be certain
> that will do the same thing, but if you do, I've no problem taking your
> word for it. Should I
Okay - I don't understand how the class works well enough to be certain
that will do the same thing, but if you do, I've no problem taking your
word for it. Should I resend the patch with that change?
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
> -if (!Compilations)
> - llvm::r
-if (!Compilations)
- llvm::report_fatal_error(ErrorMessage);
+if (!Compilations) {
+ errs() << "Compilation database not found - using default options\n";
+ int argc = 1;
+ const char *argv[] = {"--"};
+ Compilations.reset(
+ FixedCompilationDatabase::load
Per discussion at
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-December/046321.html allow
tools to work in the absence of a compilation database, but warn the user
about the absence.
Index: lib/Tooling/CommonOptionsParser.cpp
===
--- l
