I think, we need to leave the examples valid for unix-like shells and add a short section describing differences of shells or giving windows-specific usage instructions. Some examples are just impossible to make compatible with all shells (e.g. -checks='*', even though this is not particularly useful).
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:34 PM Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > Seems like we need different instructions for different shells then :( > >> > The problem is that otherwise the -*... can be subject to shell > >> > expansion if > >> > it happens to match some files. > >> > >> Ah, I kind of wondered if this was a shell issue. Thank you for the > >> verification! > >> > >> Do you think it makes sense to update the option parsing code to strip > >> the single quotes if they are present? > > > > > > No, I don't think it's the tool's job to handle idiosyncrasies of the > > various shells. > > For the docs I see two possibilities: > > a) have 2 versions, one for cmd.exe, one for *sh. > > b) the probability that users will actually have file named -something, > is > > not that high, we use the non-quoted version > > I kind of lean towards (b) with the understanding (which may be > incorrect) that users of the shell are expected to understand when to > quote arguments and when not to. That being said, I don't have a > strong opinion on it. > > ~Aaron > > > > > Alex, thoughts? > > > >> > >> > >> ~Aaron > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:49 PM Aaron Ballman <[email protected] > > > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> This patch addresses two issues (I can split the patch if it is > >> >> desired): > >> >> > >> >> 1) The docs have some non-ASCII characters in them that aren't really > >> >> required. > >> >> 2) The docs suggest setting the checks using single quotes, which > does > >> >> not work (at least, on Windows). > >> >> > >> >> When you specify checks like -checks='-*,misc-some-check', the single > >> >> quotes are not stripped by the option parser. When converting the > >> >> flags into globs to pass along to regex, the single quotes remain as > >> >> part of the regular expression, and do not match appropriately. When > >> >> the single quotes are left off, the globs are correctly generated. > >> >> > >> >> ~Aaron >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
