Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(314)

Issue 971593003: Add the missing flags for clang's chromium-style plugin. (Closed)

Created:
5 years, 9 months ago by tfarina
Modified:
5 years, 9 months ago
Reviewers:
Dirk Pranke, Nico, brettw
CC:
chromium-reviews, hans, scottmg
Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master
Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master
Project:
chromium
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Add the missing flags for clang's chromium-style plugin. Confirmed that when we enable them it correctly throw the following error: ../tools/gn/group_target_generator.h:18:34: error: [chromium-style] Overriding method must be marked with 'override' or 'final'. virtual ~GroupTargetGenerator(); ^ override This patch was tested with the following command lines (after changing BUILD.gn): $ gn gen out-gn $ ninja -v -C out-gn gn And manually checked that the new flags were passed to clang. See for example: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_chromeos_compile_dbg_ng/builds/27949 This came while doing https://codereview.chromium.org/964203002/, which without this patch passed fine but hit on the GYP trybots. BUG=462972 TEST=see above R=dpranke@chromium.org

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : REBASE #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+8 lines, -0 lines) Patch
M build/config/clang/BUILD.gn View 1 chunk +8 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 19 (4 generated)
tfarina
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-01 23:49:00 UTC) #1
Nico
not lgtm, we shouldn't duplicate these flags. that makes things needlessly hard for us. if ...
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-02 03:35:47 UTC) #3
tfarina
Yes, changing to a Python script helps GN.
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-02 13:41:14 UTC) #4
Nico
On 2015/03/02 13:41:14, tfarina wrote: > Yes, changing to a Python script helps GN. Feel ...
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-02 18:44:29 UTC) #5
tfarina
Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/966723003 ;)
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-02 20:41:07 UTC) #6
tfarina
Brett, ping? Could you approve this?
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-04 20:37:17 UTC) #8
Nico
lgtm, given that the gyp build does this too soon
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-04 20:39:57 UTC) #9
brettw
lgtm
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-04 20:58:40 UTC) #10
commit-bot: I haz the power
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/971593003/1
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-04 21:20:58 UTC) #12
Nico
I'm unchecking cq for a bit since this collides with https://codereview.chromium.org/980523002/ (should be easy to ...
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-04 21:43:15 UTC) #14
tfarina
After https://codereview.chromium.org/980523002/diff/20001/tools/clang/scripts/plugin_flags.py, it made this patch not necessary anymore. Closing this.
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-06 15:47:19 UTC) #15
Nico
heh, so I guess this was incorrect because these flags are duplicated and someone forgot ...
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-06 15:53:41 UTC) #16
scottmg
The tool's there (tools/gn/bin/gyp_flag_compare.py) but I think we have to get the builds closer before ...
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-06 17:38:21 UTC) #17
Dirk Pranke
Yeah, I think we should start seriously looking at the output of that tool now; ...
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-06 18:46:36 UTC) #18
scottmg
5 years, 9 months ago (2015-03-06 21:37:33 UTC) #19
Message was sent while issue was closed.
My gnat brain forgot that I already added it to the Linux GN bots, see e.g.

http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20GN/builds/24403/s...

"""
Total differences: 293832
"""

I'm not sure if they're close enough yet to switch that step to be
actionable. Some don't look too important, but they'd need to be audited.

I didn't do this yet, but we could pull that number out and track it like a
perf number so that the step will be red if it increases. We still have to
put in the work to decrease the number though, of course.


On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote:

> Yeah, I think we should start seriously looking at the output of that tool
> now; it's been
> on my to-do list for a week or so, along with too many other things.
>
> -- Dirk
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Scott Graham <scottmg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> The tool's there (tools/gn/bin/gyp_flag_compare.py) but I think we have
>> to get the builds closer before it could be automatic? Maybe linux is close
>> enough now though that we could actually whitelist some things and then
>> make it a bot step. I'll run it again today and see how it looks.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:53 AM, <thakis@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> heh, so I guess this was incorrect because these flags are duplicated and
>>> someone forgot to update the gn files.
>>>
>>> How's the thing that automatically compares compile arguments coming
>>> along? :-/
>>>
>>>
>>> https://codereview.chromium.org/971593003/
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
>>>
>>
>>
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698