hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/performance/InefficientVectorOperationCheck.cpp:53-54
+ PushBackCall)),
+ hasParent(compoundStmt(unless(has(ReserveCall)),
+ has(VectorVarDefStmt))))
+ .bind("for_loop"),
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > I'm really not keen on this. It will catch trivial cases, so there is
> > > some utility, but this will quickly fall apart with anything past the
> > > trivial case.
> > The motivation of this check is to find code patterns like `for (int i = 0;
> > i < n; ++i) { v.push_back(i); }` and clean them in our codebase (we have
> > lots of similar cases).
> > [These](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bbc-6DlNs6zQujWD5-XOHWbfPJVMG7Z_T27Kv0WcFb4/edit?usp=sharing)
> > are all cases we want to support. Using `hasParent` is a simple and
> > sufficient way to do it IMO.
> I'm not convinced of the utility without implementing this in a more
> sensitive way. Have you run this across any large code bases and found that
> it catches issues?
Yeah, the check catches ~2800 cases (regexp shows ~17,000 total usages) in our
internal codebase. And all caught cases are what we are interested in. It would
catch more if we support for-range loops and iterator-based for-loops.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31757
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
