hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidyOptions.cpp:235
@@ +234,3 @@
+ if (Iter != CachedOptions.end()) {
+ RawOptions.push_back(Iter->second);
+ break;
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> This seems to be changing the caching logic. Consider this directory
> structure:
>
> a/
> .clang-tidy
> b/
> c/
>
> And consequtive `getRawOptions` calls with:
> 1. "a/some_file"
> 2. "a/b/c/some_file"
> 3. "a/b/some_file".
>
> What would happen previously:
> 1. after call 1 `CachedOptions` would contain an entry for "a"
> 2. call 2 would find an entry for "a" and copy it for "a/b" and "a/b/c"
> 3. call 3 would just use the cache entry for "a/b"
>
> Now step 2 doesn't copy the cache entry to "a/b" and "a/b/c".
>
> Is there any specific reason to change this? This is benign given that the
> lookups happen in memory, but then the code needs to be consistent and avoid
> replicating cache entries to intermediate directories in all cases.
Oh, I add a `break` statement here accidently. Remove it, and keep the caching
logic here now.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidyOptions.h:115
@@ +114,3 @@
+ /// * clang-tidy binary
+ /// * '-config' commandline option or a specific configuration file
+ /// * '-checks' commandline option
----------------
Explaining the priority of `config` option and config file is't reasonable here
since clang-tidy only takes one of them. If the config option is specified,
clang-tidy just ignores the config file.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18694
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
