ilya-biryukov added a comment. In D48116#1322878 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48116#1322878>, @nik wrote:
> In D48116#1144732 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48116#1144732>, @ilya-biryukov > wrote: > > > Have you considered doing the same filtering in ASTUnit's > > `StoredDiagnosticConsumer`? It should not be more difficult and allows to > > avoid changing the clang's diagnostic interfaces. That's what we do in > > clangd. > > > Hmm, it's a bit strange that StoredDiagnosticConsumer should also start to > filter things. I > For filtering in StoredDiagnosticConsumer one needs to pass the new bool > everywhere along where "bool CaptureDiagnostics" is already passed on (to end > up in the StoredDiagnosticConsumer constructor) . Also, > ASTUnit::CaptureDiagnostics is then not enough anymore since the new bool is > also needed in getMainBufferWithPrecompiledPreamble(). One could also (2) > convert "bool CaptureDiagnostics" to an enum with enumerators like > CaptureNothing, CaptureAll, CaptureAllWithoutNonErrorsFromIncludes to make > this a bit less invasive. > If changing clang's diagnostic interface should be avoided, I tend to go > with (2). Ilya? Yeah, LG. The changes in the `ASTUnit` look strictly better than changes in clang - the latter seems to already provide enough to do the filtering. If you avoid changing the `StoredDiagnosticConsumer` (or writing a filtering wrapper for `DiagnosticConsumer`), you'll end up having some diagnostics inside headers generated **after** preamble was built, right? That might be either ok or not, depending on the use-case. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D48116/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D48116 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
