|
|
|
Created:
14 years, 8 months ago by klimek Modified:
14 years, 8 months ago CC:
cfe-commits_cs.uiuc.edu Visibility:
Public. |
Looks like it should have been there all along - clang-check is a useful tool for quick feedback editor-integration.
Patch Set 1 #
Total messages: 6
|
klimek
|
14 years, 8 months ago (2011年04月28日 20:57:52 UTC) #1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:57 PM, klimek@google.com wrote: > Reviewers: chandlerc, > > Description: > Looks like it should have been there all along - clang-check is a useful > tool for quick feedback editor-integration. > > Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4449067/ One of the reasons that it isn't in tools is that we don't want to build it all the time. The incremental cost of linking all the libraries into yet-another-tool is quite high. Why is this useful? -Chris
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:57 PM, klimek@google.com wrote: > >> Reviewers: chandlerc, >> >> Description: >> Looks like it should have been there all along - clang-check is a useful >> tool for quick feedback editor-integration. >> >> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4449067/ > > One of the reasons that it isn't in tools is that we don't want to build it all the time. The incremental cost of linking all the libraries into yet-another-tool is quite high. Why is this useful? From our experience at Google this is one of the favorite tools of our developers, as it allows fast feedback while coding from vi or emacs without the need to invoke the build. Cheers, /Manuel
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:57 PM, klimek@google.com wrote: > > > >> Reviewers: chandlerc, > >> > >> Description: > >> Looks like it should have been there all along - clang-check is a useful > >> tool for quick feedback editor-integration. > >> > >> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4449067/ > > > > One of the reasons that it isn't in tools is that we don't want to build > it all the time. The incremental cost of linking all the libraries into > yet-another-tool is quite high. Why is this useful? > > >From our experience at Google this is one of the favorite tools of our > developers, as it allows fast feedback while coding from vi or emacs > without the need to invoke the build. Yea, in particular, this was seen as a really killer tool when folks rigged up a ":clang_check" vim or emacs command that would invoke it on the file in the current buffer after a quick save. It's basically a way to get the "clang compile" button of xcode into other environments. That said, if its slowing down builds, is there a way we can mark specific tools as optional? It seems more important to have the code and the tool be discoverable in the tree than be built every time if people aren't using it...
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:57 PM, klimek@google.com wrote: > >> Reviewers: chandlerc, >> >> Description: >> Looks like it should have been there all along - clang-check is a useful >> tool for quick feedback editor-integration. >> >> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4449067/ > > One of the reasons that it isn't in tools is that we don't want to build it all the time. The incremental cost of linking all the libraries into yet-another-tool is quite high. Why is this useful? Hi Chris, I don't care either way which way this goes, I'd just like to point out that building this binary takes a whopping 1.5s on my underpowered MBP: s$ time make llvm[0]: Compiling ClangCheck.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[0]: Linking Release+Asserts executable clang-check (without symbols) llvm[0]: ======= Finished Linking Release+Asserts Executable clang-check (without symbols) real 0m1.599s user 0m1.239s sys 0m0.327s Nico > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
I guess all the arguments are on the table - Chris, what do you think? Thanks, /Manuel On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Nico Weber <thakis@chromium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 28, 2011, at 1:57 PM, klimek@google.com wrote: >> >>> Reviewers: chandlerc, >>> >>> Description: >>> Looks like it should have been there all along - clang-check is a useful >>> tool for quick feedback editor-integration. >>> >>> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4449067/ >> >> One of the reasons that it isn't in tools is that we don't want to build it all the time. The incremental cost of linking all the libraries into yet-another-tool is quite high. Why is this useful? > > Hi Chris, > > I don't care either way which way this goes, I'd just like to point > out that building this binary takes a whopping 1.5s on my underpowered > MBP: > > s$ time make > llvm[0]: Compiling ClangCheck.cpp for Release+Asserts build > llvm[0]: Linking Release+Asserts executable clang-check (without symbols) > llvm[0]: ======= Finished Linking Release+Asserts Executable > clang-check (without symbols) > > real 0m1.599s > user 0m1.239s > sys 0m0.327s > > > Nico > >> >> -Chris >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >