On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 1:52 PM Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 9:43 PM Alexander Kornienko via cfe-commits > <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Author: alexfh > > Date: Sat Nov 24 18:41:01 2018 > > New Revision: 347520 > > > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=347520&view=rev > > Log: > > A bit of AST matcher cleanup, NFC. > > > > Removed the uses of the allOf() matcher inside node matchers that are > implicit > > allOf(). Replaced uses of allOf() with the explicit node matcher where > it makes > > matchers more readable. Replace anyOf(hasName(), hasName(), ...) with > the more > > efficient and readable hasAnyName(). > > Would it make sense to have a check under the llvm module for this > coding pattern? > Probably yes, but I wouldn't be too optimistic about the positive impact of that check compared to the cost of creating and supporting it. If someone has a large enough chunk of time they could devote to improving clang-tidy performance, there was an interesting idea about optimizing AST matchers at runtime. E.g. currently `unless(isInTemplateInstantiation())` matchers go up the ancestor chain, but a more efficient implementation could just skip traversal of template instantiations for the matchers that have the `unless(isInTemplateInstantiation())` constraint. To implement this, the matchers framework would need to analyze the matchers and rewrite them (instead of just passing control to them). > > ~Aaron >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
