ilya-biryukov added a comment. In D67172#1662888 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67172#1662888>, @sammccall wrote:
> I do wonder whether we're microoptimizing for the tests too much, I don't > think 5% on the tests is worth very much in itself, unless it's speeding up > real workloads or improving the code (it may well be). Even though tests don't parse real C++ programs, I wouldn't call it a micro-optimization. Spending 5% on such a low-level operation is not ok, small things like that can add up and have a subtle effect on performance. If there's an issue with making the code more complex, I'm happy to explore other ways to make it simpler. What would convince you that's a cleanup that improves things? What parts of the current version do you think are problematic? > I'm nervous about requiring langopts, it's convenient in tests/prototypes/etc > to be able to default-construct CanonicalIncludes (e.g. a test that doesn't > actually care about standard library mappings). We can have a factory method that constructs with default lang opts for tests, I don't think this would be an issue in the actual application code. In fact, I think it'll make the application code better. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67172/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67172 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
