alexfh added a comment.
A few more nits.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/InefficientStringConcatenationCheck.cpp:50
@@ +49,3 @@
+ hasOverloadedOperatorName("="),
+ hasArgument(0, allOf(declRefExpr(BasicStringType),
+ declRefExpr(hasDeclaration(decl().bind("lhsStrT")))
----------------
The `allOf(declRefExpr(x), declRefExpr(y))` construct can be replaced with
`declRefExpr(x, y)`.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/InefficientStringConcatenationCheck.cpp:54
@@ +53,3 @@
+ hasArgument(1, stmt(hasDescendant(declRefExpr(
+ hasDeclaration(decl(equalsBoundNode("lhsStrT"))))))),
+ hasDescendant(BasicStringPlusOperator));
----------------
Indentation is confusing - as though `hasDeclaration` is an argument of `stmt`.
Is it a result of clang-format?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/InefficientStringConcatenationCheck.cpp:63
@@ +62,3 @@
+ cxxOperatorCallExpr(
+ hasAncestor(stmt(anyOf(cxxForRangeStmt(), whileStmt(),
forStmt()))),
+ anyOf(AssignOperator, PlusOperator)),
----------------
`hasAncestor` is potentially more expensive, so it should go last.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20196
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
