aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSam McCall <sam.mccall@gmail.com>2020-09-25 22:25:03 +0200
committerSam McCall <sam.mccall@gmail.com>2020-10-01 15:47:47 +0200
commit79fbcbff41734e3d07e6200d33c3e40732dfae6a (patch)
tree2040497f155ff2d528983f889914915e32e72f58 /clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp
parent5665ec4e182dba9965847d3698ad64a950bb00a7 (diff)
downloadllvm-79fbcbff41734e3d07e6200d33c3e40732dfae6a.zip
llvm-79fbcbff41734e3d07e6200d33c3e40732dfae6a.tar.gz
llvm-79fbcbff41734e3d07e6200d33c3e40732dfae6a.tar.bz2
[clangd] clangd --check: standalone diagnosis of common problems
This is a tool to simply parse a file as clangd would, and run some common features (code actions, go-to-definition, hover) in an attempt to trigger or reproduce crashes, error diagnostics, etc. This is easier and more predictable than loading the file in clangd, because: - there's no editor/plugin variation to worry about - there's no accidental variation of user behavior or other extraneous requests - we trigger features at every token, rather than guessing - everything is synchronoous, logs are easier to reason about - it's easier to (get users to) capture logs when running on the command-line This is a fairly lightweight variant of this idea. We could do a lot more with it, and maybe we should. But I can't in the near future, and experience will tell us if we made the right tradeoffs and if it's worth investing further. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88338
Diffstat (limited to 'clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/BuildTree.cpp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions