tbaeder added a comment. In D151300#4367943 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151300#4367943>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D151300#4367939 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151300#4367939>, @tbaeder wrote: > >> In D151300#4367884 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151300#4367884>, >> @aaron.ballman wrote: >> >>> LGTM, but it's worth noting that `std::string::pop_back()` calls `erase()` >>> and there's no guarantee that there's not an extra allocation involved as a >>> result. However, I've not seen evidence that STLs actually do an allocation >>> (looking at libc++ and MSVC STL, they don't appear to allocate), so I think >>> this is fine. >> >> Is the allocation only relevant for performance reasons or something else? > > Performance was my only concern there. Okay, good. I don't think that's too bad since the common line of code has exactly 0 trailing null bytes anyway. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D151300/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D151300 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
