alexfh requested changes to this revision.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/InefficientStringConcatenationCheck.cpp:41
@@ +40,3 @@
+
+ const auto PlusOperatorMatcher =
+ cxxOperatorCallExpr(
----------------
s/Matcher//
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/InefficientStringConcatenationCheck.cpp:48
@@ +47,3 @@
+
+ const auto AssingOperator = cxxOperatorCallExpr(
+ hasOverloadedOperatorName("="), hasDescendant(BasicStringPlusOperator),
----------------
s/Assing/Assign/
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/InefficientStringConcatenationCheck.cpp:57
@@ +56,3 @@
+
+ if (!StrictMode) {
+ Finder->addMatcher(
----------------
Please avoid unnecessary negation by putting the positive branch first, this
will make the logic slightly simpler.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/InefficientStringConcatenationCheck.cpp:67
@@ +66,3 @@
+ Finder->addMatcher(
+ exprWithCleanups(anyOf(hasDescendant(AssingOperator),
+ hasDescendant(PlusOperatorMatcher))),
----------------
1. The `anyOf(hasAncestor(A), hasAncestor(B), ...)` construct is still there.
Please replace it with `hasAncestor(anyOf(A, B, ...))`.
2. Is there really no way to change from hasDescendant / hasAncestor to more
strict patterns? I believe, running the check on LLVM doesn't help finding
performance issues, since LLVM specifically avoids this pattern by using Twine.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20196
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
