njames93 added a comment. In D138505#3944285 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D138505#3944285>, @sammccall wrote:
> Ideas on testing welcome. Does it make sense to rely on the fact that > `misc-const-correctness` is always slow? :-D I'd say it doesn't, if the check is ever updated in a way to be more performant it'd be nice if we don't need to change anything hard coded in clangd to enable it to run again. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ParsedAST.cpp:487 + } + CTFactories = std::move(FastFactories); + } ---------------- Not exactly related but surely both check factories could be made into static variables and then just choose the factory based on the config. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/tool/Check.cpp:468 + // is counterproductive! + if (CheckTidyTime.getNumOccurrences()) + F.Diagnostics.ClangTidy.SlowChecks = true; ---------------- How about changing this provide to always enable slow checks, but only use the provider if the flag is passed? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138505/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138505 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
