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