aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaConcept.cpp:150
+namespace {
+struct SatisfactionStackRAII {
+ Sema &SemaRef;
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Er, it'd be nice for this not to shadow the name of the class from `Sema`,
> > that's pretty confusing.
> What do you mean? What name does it shadow?
Sema.h:7239 (code you added in this patch).
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaConcept.cpp:276-278
+ for (const auto &List : MLTAL)
+ for (const auto &TemplateArg : List.Args)
+ TemplateArg.Profile(ID, S.Context);
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > What are the chances that this `O(N^2)` operation is going to come back to
> > bite us in terms of compile time performance?
> I'd hope not too much? This is just going through the whole list of template
> arguments on this expression, so I think that makes this `O(M*N)`, where M
> and N are limited by the number of template arguments we allow.
>
Okay, I was mostly worried about STL headers where there may be a long list of
template arguments and not a lot of recursion to worry about. We don't really
memoize whether we've already determined a given constraint is not recursive so
that we don't have to repeat this work over and over again, but if performance
is a concern in practice, we could explore that as an option.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136975/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136975
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
