njames93 added a comment. I decided to do some more stringent benchmarking, just focusing on the matching, not the boilerplate of running clang-tidy.
=================================BeforePatch=================================== Matcher Timings: 116.0756 user 29.1397 system 145.2154 process 145.2168 wall Matcher Timings: 117.7205 user 29.2475 system 146.9681 process 146.9158 wall Matcher Timings: 116.8313 user 29.5170 system 146.3483 process 146.2655 wall Matcher Timings: 117.9491 user 29.0969 system 147.0459 process 146.9678 wall Matcher Timings: 117.6309 user 29.1864 system 146.8173 process 146.7687 wall user: 117.2+-0.753 system: 29.24+-0.166 process: 146.5+-0.760 ==================================AfterPatch=================================== Matcher Timings: 110.5497 user 28.3316 system 138.8813 process 138.7960 wall Matcher Timings: 112.5151 user 28.8616 system 141.3767 process 141.3003 wall Matcher Timings: 116.1578 user 28.9472 system 145.1049 process 145.0785 wall Matcher Timings: 107.1089 user 27.2752 system 134.3841 process 134.3459 wall Matcher Timings: 105.9242 user 27.0338 system 132.9580 process 132.9010 wall user: 110.4+-4.159 system: 28.09+-0.890 process: 138.6+-4.979 This is showing ~5% improvement when running every clang-tidy check on a translation unit (Specifically `clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/modernize/LoopConvertCheck.cpp`) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80202/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80202 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
