aaron.ballman added a comment. In D116328#3223344 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116328#3223344>, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> My takeaway: > > - if `has` isn't expensive, I can either ditch this public matcher or move it > to be a private matcher used in my check I don't think `has()` is particularly expensive, so I think you should be able to use it directly. However, if you profiled something and notice a measurable difference between `has()` and `hasSubstatement()` in practice, that would be really good for the community to know. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116328/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116328 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
