LegalizeAdulthood added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-unused-no-side-effect.rst:25-26
+
+A function is considered to "not read an argument unless the return value is
+used" in the following cases:
+
----------------
The quotes here don't feel like they're needed.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-unused-no-side-effect.rst:35
+
+- A function listed in FunctionAllowList, if the argument is in index ``i`` and
+ bit ``i`` is set in the corresponding allow list entry.
----------------
Single backquotes around `FunctionAllowList`
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-unused-no-side-effect.rst:93
+ {
+ "std::string": ["swap"],
+ "absl::int128": [],
----------------
Since `std::string` is just a type alias, shouldn't we be considering
`basic_string`?
What about `wstring`?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-unused-no-side-effect.rst:103
+ "absl::string_view": ["swap", "copy"],
+ "std::string_view": ["swap", "copy"]
+ }
----------------
`string_view` is also just a type alias, there is `wstring_view`, etc.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-unused-no-side-effect.rst:115-152
+ {
+ "std::vector": ["swap"],
+ "std::pair": [],
+ "std::tuple": [],
+ "std::optional": ["swap"],
+ "std::variant": ["swap"],
+ "std::list": ["swap"],
----------------
It would be easier to scan this list if it were sorted alphabetically. I see
`basic_string` listed here, but not `basic_string_view`. Is that intentional?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-unused-no-side-effect.rst:172-173
+List of functions that are considered not to read some of their arguments
+unless their return value is read. Arguments are identified by a bitmask, where
+the i-th LSB being set indicates that the i-th argument is unused.
+
----------------
This isn't user-friendly at all. Why not an array of argument indices starting
at zero?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/performance-unused-no-side-effect.cpp:118
+ (VecLoops).push_back(3);
+}
----------------
Should there be some test cases for user-defined template types with no side
effects?
Also some test cases for the smart pointer cases?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124918/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124918
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
