LegalizeAdulthood added a comment. In D116328#3241329 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116328#3241329>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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 > > [...] 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. Do we have some sort of benchmarking facility in place, or do I have to homebrew something? 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
