alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
If you're still considering to submit this patch, could you rebase it (or maybe
re-generate instead?) and split into easier to digest parts?
A couple of things I noticed:
1. `v.push_back(X);` -> `v.emplace_back(X);` pattern, where `X` has a type of
element of `v`. Not sure whether `emplace_back` provides any benefit in this
case.
2. a sub-case of 1 where `X` is `std::make_pair(...)`, in this case
`emplace_back` makes sense, if `std::make_pair` is removed as well. I don't
know whether it's practical to teach the check this pattern. Given its
frequency, might well be good.
================
Comment at: lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp:3903
if (Record.size() > 10 && Record[10] != 0)
- FunctionPrologues.push_back(std::make_pair(Func, Record[10]-1));
+ FunctionPrologues.emplace_back(std::make_pair(Func, Record[10]-1));
----------------
No `make_pair`.
================
Comment at: lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp:3921
if (Record.size() > 13 && Record[13] != 0)
- FunctionPrefixes.push_back(std::make_pair(Func, Record[13]-1));
+ FunctionPrefixes.emplace_back(std::make_pair(Func, Record[13]-1));
----------------
ditto
================
Comment at: lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp:3924
if (Record.size() > 14 && Record[14] != 0)
- FunctionPersonalityFns.push_back(std::make_pair(Func, Record[14] - 1));
+ FunctionPersonalityFns.emplace_back(std::make_pair(Func, Record[14] -
1));
----------------
ditto
================
Comment at: lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp:3989
ValueList.push_back(NewGA);
- IndirectSymbolInits.push_back(std::make_pair(NewGA, Val));
+ IndirectSymbolInits.emplace_back(std::make_pair(NewGA, Val));
break;
----------------
ditto
================
Comment at: lib/Bitcode/Writer/ValueEnumerator.cpp:149
if (OM.lookup(U.getUser()).first)
- List.push_back(std::make_pair(&U, List.size()));
+ List.emplace_back(std::make_pair(&U, List.size()));
----------------
No `std::make_pair` needed.
================
Comment at: lib/Bitcode/Writer/ValueEnumerator.cpp:606
else
- Worklist.push_back(std::make_pair(Op, Op->op_begin()));
+ Worklist.emplace_back(std::make_pair(Op, Op->op_begin()));
continue;
----------------
ditto
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DbgValueHistoryCalculator.cpp:50
}
- Ranges.push_back(std::make_pair(&MI, nullptr));
+ Ranges.emplace_back(std::make_pair(&MI, nullptr));
}
----------------
No need for `std::make_pair`.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGExprScalar.cpp:2755
BaseCheck->addIncoming(ValidBase, CheckShiftBase);
- Checks.push_back(std::make_pair(BaseCheck, SanitizerKind::ShiftBase));
+ Checks.emplace_back(std::make_pair(BaseCheck, SanitizerKind::ShiftBase));
}
----------------
`make_pair` can be removed, IIUC.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.cpp:948
for (auto &&AP : VTLayout.getAddressPoints())
- BitsetEntries.push_back(std::make_pair(AP.first.getBase(), AP.second));
+ BitsetEntries.emplace_back(std::make_pair(AP.first.getBase(), AP.second));
----------------
Not sure if it's practical to teach the check this pattern, but
`std::make_pair` is not needed here.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/ScheduleDAGInstrs.cpp:1498
void visitCrossEdge(const SDep &PredDep, const SUnit *Succ) {
- ConnectionPairs.push_back(std::make_pair(PredDep.getSUnit(), Succ));
+ ConnectionPairs.emplace_back(std::make_pair(PredDep.getSUnit(), Succ));
}
----------------
No `make_pair` needed.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/FastISel.cpp:2079
}
- FuncInfo.PHINodesToUpdate.push_back(std::make_pair(MBBI++, Reg));
+ FuncInfo.PHINodesToUpdate.emplace_back(std::make_pair(MBBI++, Reg));
DbgLoc = DebugLoc();
----------------
No `make_pair` needed.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21507
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
