arphaman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: tools/clang-refactor/ClangRefactor.cpp:60
+ : SubCommand(Name, Description), Action(&Action) {
+ Sources = llvm::make_unique<cl::list<std::string>>(
+ cl::Positional, cl::ZeroOrMore, cl::desc("<source0> [... <sourceN>]"),
----------------
arphaman wrote:
> ioeric wrote:
> > I think you would get a conflict of positional args when you have multiple
> > sub-command instances.
> >
> > Any reason not to use `clang::tooling::CommonOptionsParser` which takes
> > care of sources and compilation options for you?
> Not from my experience, I've tried multiple actions it seems like the right
> arguments are parsed for the right subcommand. It looks like the cl option
> parser looks is smart enough to handle identical options across multiple
> subcommands.
I agree that using `CommonOptionsParser` would be preferable, but right now it
doesn't work well with subcommands. I will create a followup patch that
improves subcommand support in `CommonOptionsParser` and uses them in
clang-refactor when this patch is accepted.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36574
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
