xazax.hun added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45458#1062342, @NoQ wrote:
> @xazax.hun: do you think the approach you took in the `Valist` checker is > applicable here? Did you like how it ended up working? Cause i'd love to see > `CallDescription` and initializer lists used for readability here. And i'd > love to see branches replaced with map lookups. And i'm not sure if anybody > has written code that has all the stuff that i'd love to see. Overall the `CallDescription` interface works really well if you do not need anything more advanced, e.g. supporting overloads. I can imagine that its current implementation is slightly less efficient since the lazy initialization logic of the identifiers are repeated for every identifier but that also makes it less bug-prone (do not have the implicit assumption that a set of identifiers should always exist together). It would be great to extend the interface in the future, but one of the reasons I was reluctant to do so yet is performance. E.g.: having a simple check that a checker is interested only in global C functions is better than having this check repeated in every call description object in an array, or making it possible to do a StringSwitch like optimization with multiple statically known CallDescription objects would also be awesome. But I think most of the time these tests would not be used on the hot paths anyways, so as long its current expressive power is sufficient, I prefer code that is utilizing this tool. It tends to make the code slightly shorter. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D45458 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
