sammccall added a comment.
FWIW, I think validating the names makes sense but I don't think typo
correction pays for itself here. @kadircet?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/TidyProvider.cpp:291
+ static void *call() {
+ return new tidy::NamesAndOptions(tidy::getAllChecksAndOptions(false));
+ }
----------------
it seems strange that clang-tidy provides this API to query what checks are
linked in, but it constructs an expensive object every time rather than just
creating a static one once and returning a reference to it. (i.e. the
memoization is on the caller side)
Should we fix that API instead?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126859/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126859
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
