sgatev added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/Models/UncheckedOptionalAccessModel.cpp:81
+auto isOptionalValueOrConversionAssignment() {
+ return cxxOperatorCallExpr(
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> While really like the convenience matchers will give us building data flow
> analyses, I wonder whether a lot of duplicated work is happening in the
> background. E.g. will we end up string comparing the class name of the parent
> of the method in the matcher built by `optionalClass` whenever we process an
> overloaded `operator=`?
>
> In a handwritten implementation we would only do this once, store the address
> of the canonical declaration somewhere and subsequent checks would only look
> up the canonical declaration of the called method and do a pointer
> comparison.
>
> In case this matcher approach is not that efficient, I wonder if it would be
> possible to come up with some APIs where the matching is only done once and
> subsequent transfer functions would only use the cached pointers to
> declarations/types. In case the matchers are already doing something smart in
> the background feel free to ignore this comment.
That's a great point! Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the implementation
of matchers so I'll need to take a closer look/ask around to understand if such
an optimization is already in place. Let me take a note of this for now. I
suggest revising the APIs once we know more about the internals of matchers.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121863/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121863
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
