Trass3r added a comment. In D135690#3852362 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135690#3852362>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> what's the need for adding this matcher? Do you plan to use it for some > in-tree needs? We usually only add new matchers where there's an immediate > need for them because of how expensive AST matchers are to compile (and each > matcher adds a fair number of template instantiations to the final binary as > well, so there's a bit of runtime cost too). Didn't realize it has a big cost. Looking inside the `AST_MATCHER` and `REGISTER_MATCHER` macros I can't see any unique instantiations, should be memoized? I created it a while ago for use in a clang-tidy check. Oddly I can't find that code right now. It might have been for finding inline ctors/dtors: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/51577. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/tools/clang/+/refs/heads/main/plugins/FindBadConstructsConsumer.cpp#495 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135690/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135690 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
