njames93 added a subscriber: sammccall.
njames93 added a comment.
@sammccall I have a feeling you're gonna want to examine this checks
feasibility in clangd.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck.cpp:79
+
+static auto findDeclRefBlock(CFG const *TheCFG, DeclRefExpr const *DeclRef)
+ -> FindDeclRefBlockReturn {
----------------
We generally avoid trailing return types.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck.cpp:96
+
+static auto
+nextUsageInCurrentBlock(FindDeclRefBlockReturn const &StartBlockElement,
----------------
The same rules for auto apply here, this should be explicit about what pointer
it's returning.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck.cpp:123
+ hasLHS(ignoringParenImpCasts(declRefExpr(equalsNode(DeclRef)))))),
+ Context);
+ return !Matches.empty();
----------------
Matching over the entire context seems pretty and a huge drain on performance,
would it not make sense to just match inside the function declaration.
Side note maybe a RecursiveASTVisitor would make more sense here in terms of
performance.
Same goes for isInLambdaCapture.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck.cpp:290
+
+ if (isInLambdaCapture(Param, *Result.Context)) {
+ // Lambda captures should not be fixed.
----------------
What's the reason for this logic, they require a different fix -
`x` => `x(std::move(x))`
And a checking langopts for c++14.
Or is this because of implicit captures?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck.h:30
+ UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck(StringRef Name, ClangTidyContext *Context);
+ UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck(UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck &&) = delete;
+ UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck(const UnnecessaryCopyOnLastUseCheck &) =
delete;
----------------
We typically avoid defining all the special member functions for clang tidy
checks. The destructor typically only needs to be defined if it's definition
can't be inside the header file.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/performance/unnecessary-copy-on-last-use.cpp:1
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s -std=c++17
performance-unnecessary-copy-on-last-use %t
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s -std=c++11
performance-unnecessary-copy-on-last-use %t
----------------
Running this check explicitly in c++11/17 implies you expect different
diagnostics, if so you can use the `--check-suffixes` flag to enable checking
configurations. Search for other tests which use that if you're unsure
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/performance/unnecessary-copy-on-last-use.cpp:16
+
+struct Copyable {
+ Copyable() = default;
----------------
This struct appears to be unused and has exactly the same definition as
`Movable`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137205/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137205
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
