Moves clang-check from examples/Tooling into tools

Looks like it should have been there all along - clang-check is a useful tool for quick feedback editor-integration.

[clattner_apple.com, 2011-04-28 21:03:44]

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

[klimek, 2011-04-28 21:23:14]

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

[chandlerc1, 2011-04-28 21:28:04]

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...

[thakis, 2011-04-30 03:15:49]

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
>

[klimek, 2011-05-02 20:48:40]

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
>>
>