ymandel added a comment. In D103087#2813901 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103087#2813901>, @flx wrote:
> In D103087#2793673 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103087#2793673>, @ymandel wrote: > >> I have some concerns about the cost of this checks as it used matching over >> entire contexts quite extensively. At this point, the facilities involved >> seem quite close to doing dataflow analysis and I wonder if you might be >> better off with a very different implementation. Regardless, have you done >> any perfomance testing to see the impact on real code? > > That's a fair point. Is there prior art in terms of dataflow analysis in > ClangTidy or LLVM I could take a look at? Added Dmitri to speak to prior art. > In terms of measuring performance, do you have suggestions how to measure > this? I can add a counter that counts the recursion depth that is reached to > see how often this happens in practice. I would simply run clang-tidy over a reasonable size set of files and see the timing w/ and w/o this change. But, I think that clang-tidy may have some built-in perf monitoring as well (specifically, a way to display the cost of each check, or the top most costly ones). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D103087/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D103087 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
