martong added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/RangeConstraintManager.cpp:149
+
+RangeSet RangeSet::Factory::unite(RangeSet Original, llvm::APSInt Point) {
+ return unite(Original, Range(ValueFactory.getValue(Point)));
----------------
ASDenysPetrov wrote:
> steakhal wrote:
> > Why do you take `APSInt`s by value? Generally, we take them by reference.
> I want to send a message to the caller that he can pass an arbitrary
> **APSInt** without warrying about making it permanent (aka stored by the
> Factory). But we can revise this contract and carry this responsibility to a
> caller.
> Why do you take `APSInt`s by value? Generally, we take them by reference.
Actually, it is specific to `BasicValueFactory` to cache the `APSInt`s,
however, it might not be the best practice. I doubt that somebody has ever
measured the performance of passing APSInts by value, so my guess is the
caching of `APSInt`s might be an early optimization that might be more harmful
than advantageous. On top of all this, we do the caching inconsistently, just
consider the member functions of `APSIntType`, they all return by value.
Perhaps (totally independently from this patch of course), it might be worth to
have a measurement/comparison with removed cache and pass by value.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99797/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99797
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
