aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/NewDeleteOverloadsCheck.cpp:170
@@ +169,3 @@
+ const auto &OI = std::find_if(
+ Overloads.begin(), Overloads.end(), [&](const FunctionDecl *FD) {
+ if (FD == O)
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > alexfh wrote:
> > > I just noticed that this will be an O(N^2) from all new/delete overloads
> > > in all classes in a TU. This should probably be not much usually, but I
> > > can imagine a corner-case, where this is going to be slooow. How about
> > > sharding these by the enclosing record declaration?
> > Yes, the O(N^2) is unfortunate, sorry for not calling that out explicitly.
> > I figured that N should be incredibly minimal, however (especially since we
> > only care about *written* overloads that are not placement overloads). So
> > realistically, the maximum that N can be here is 6: operator new(),
> > operator new[](), operator delete(), operator delete[](), and sized
> > operator delete()/operator delete[](). I figured that this wasn't worth
> > complicating the code over since N is bounded.
> >
> > But I suppose the worry is if you have these operators defined in a a lot
> > of classes in the same TU? In that case, I suppose I could replace
> > SmallVector<FunctionDecl *> Overloads with MapVector<CXXRecordDecl *,
> > FunctionDecl *> Overloads?
> > But I suppose the worry is if you have these operators defined in a a lot
> > of
> > classes in the same TU? In that case, I suppose I could replace
> > SmallVector<FunctionDecl *> Overloads with MapVector<CXXRecordDecl
> > *, FunctionDecl *> Overloads?
>
> Yes, this is what I meant. Though I didn't know about `MapVector<>` before
> you told me ;)
Er, not MapVector, but perhaps a std::map<CXXRecordDecl *,
std::vector<FunctionDecl *>>, I guess.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13071
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
