aaron.ballman added a comment. In D135690#3856863 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135690#3856863>, @Trass3r wrote:
> In D135690#3852362 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135690#3852362>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> what's the need for adding this matcher? Do you plan to use it for some >> in-tree needs? We usually only add new matchers where there's an immediate >> need for them because of how expensive AST matchers are to compile (and each >> matcher adds a fair number of template instantiations to the final binary as >> well, so there's a bit of runtime cost too). > > Didn't realize it has a big cost. Looking inside the `AST_MATCHER` and > `REGISTER_MATCHER` macros I can't see any unique instantiations, should be > memoized? IIRC, the cost may depend on the compiler. I know we had to enable `/bigobj` when building with MSVC because each template instantiation here was being added to its own section in the object file and we'd wind up with tens of thousands of sections. > I created it a while ago for use in a clang-tidy check. Oddly I can't find > that code right now. > It might have been for finding inline ctors/dtors: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/51577. > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/tools/clang/+/refs/heads/main/plugins/FindBadConstructsConsumer.cpp#495 I think it might make more sense to use a local matcher if you need it only for one clang-tidy check. If we find we need it in more checks or there's a wider need for it, we can hoist it up to ASTMatchers.h so it's exposed more generally at that time. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135690/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135690 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
