xazax.hun added inline comments. ================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-inefficient-algorithm.rst:3 @@ -2,3 +2,3 @@ -misc-inefficient-algorithm +performance-inefficient-algorithm ========================== ---------------- Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > alexfh wrote: > > After reading this check name a few times, I found it too generic (one may > > think that this is a generic algorithm-level code profiler ;). I think, we > > need to rename it to `performance-inefficient-lookup-algorithm` or > > `performance-inefficient-search-algorithm`, since we're changing the name > > anyway. > I think will be better to keep generic name, since other algorithms could be > added later. That is an interesting question whether it is better to have more general check names and make checkers do more stuff or have more specific names and split functionality between more checks. It would be awesome to have a policy on that. A good benchmark whether two checks should be implemented by the same checker is to think about whether there are cases when the user might enable only one of the checks, not both.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16248 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
