ymandel added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/UnnecessaryCopyInitialization.cpp:98-101
auto Matches =
match(findAll(declStmt(has(varDecl(equalsNode(&InitializingVar))))
.bind("declStmt")),
+ Body, Context);
----------------
flx wrote:
> ymandel wrote:
> > flx wrote:
> > > ymandel wrote:
> > > > Consider inspecting the `DeclContext`s instead, which should be much
> > > > more efficient than searching the entire block. Pass the
> > > > `FunctionDecl` as an argument instead of `Body`, since it is a
> > > > `DeclContext`. e.g. `const DeclContext &Fun`
> > > >
> > > > Then, either
> > > > 1. Call `Fun.containsDecl(InitializingVar)`, or
> > > > 2. Search through the contexts yourself; something like:
> > > > ```
> > > > DeclContext* DC = InitializingVar->getDeclContext();
> > > > while (DC != nullptr && DC != &Fun)
> > > > DC = DC->getLexicalParent();
> > > > if (DC == nullptr)
> > > > // The reference or pointer is not initialized anywhere witin the
> > > > function. We
> > > > // assume its pointee is not modified then.
> > > > return true;
> > > > ```
> > > Are #1 and #2 equivalent? From the implementation and comment I cannot
> > > tell whether #1 would cover cases where the variable is not declared
> > > directly in the function, but in child block:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > void Fun() {
> > > {
> > > var i;
> > > {
> > > i.usedHere();
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > I'm also reading this as an optimization to more quickly determine
> > > whether we can stop here. We still need to find the matches for the next
> > > steps, but I think I could then limit matching to the DeclContext I
> > > found here. Is this correct? For this I would actually need the
> > > DeclContext result from #2.
> > A. I think you're right that #2 is more suited to what you need. I wasn't
> > sure, so included both. Agreed that the comments are ambiguous.
> > B. yes, this is just an optimization. it may be premature for that matter;
> > just that match can be expensive and this seemed a more direct expression
> > of the algorithm.
> I was not able to pass the (possibly more narrow) DeclContext to the match
> function as scope since match does not support DeclContexts.
>
> I implemented isDeclaredInFunction() which iterates through the decl
> contexts as you suggested. I'm not sure though whether we should start with
> VarDecl::getDeclContext() or VarDecl::getLexicalDeclContext()?
>
> While looking at VarDecl::getLexicalDeclContext() I discovered is VarDecl has
> the following method:
>
> ```
> /// Returns true for local variable declarations other than parameters.
>
> /// Note that this includes static variables inside of functions. It also
>
> /// includes variables inside blocks.
>
> ///
>
> /// void foo() { int x; static int y; extern int z; }
>
> bool isLocalVarDecl() const;
> ```
>
> I think this is exactly what we'd want here. What do you think?
>
You mean instead of `isDeclaredInFunction`? If so -- yes, that seems right.
But, if so, are you still planning to bind "declStmt" with the `match`, or will
you replace that with something more direct?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103021/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103021
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
