aaron.ballman added a comment. In D116328#3241486 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116328#3241486>, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> 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? I've always homebrewed it, but if we have better facilities these days, I'd love to know about them! 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
