whisperity added a comment. In D91000#3861942 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000#3861942>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> My concern with that approach was that we pay the full expense of doing the > matches only get get into the `check()` function to bail out on all the Annex > K functions, but now that there are replacements outside of Annex K, I don't > see a way around paying that expense, so I think my concern has been > addressed as well as it could have been. I think that Clang-Tidy checks are instantiated per AST. I will look into whether we can somehow do the disabling of the check as early as possible! (In that case, we could simply NOT register the matcher related to Annex-K functions.) Either way, I'll do a rebase, re-run the tests and etc., and likely take over the check. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
