This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL34: [clang-tidy] Optimize query in
bugprone-exception-escape (authored by baloghadamsoftware, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.o
JonasToth accepted this revision.
JonasToth added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53187#1264415, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> I think further optimization steps should be done is separate patches.
> However, this is the biggest step.
Agr
baloghadamsoftware added a comment.
I think further optimization steps should be done is separate patches. However,
this is the biggest step.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.
baloghadamsoftware updated this revision to Diff 169552.
baloghadamsoftware added a comment.
Warning added to the docs.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53187
Files:
clang-tidy/bugprone/ExceptionEscapeCheck.cpp
docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-exception-escape.rst
test/clang-tidy/bugprone-excepti
JonasToth added a comment.
> Thousands? After the query optimization the max was 173, and that only for a
> single function. The next number was 64.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/attachment.cgi?id=20963
I did not run again with your patch. But even 173 and 64 seem like a lot and
might be worth opti
baloghadamsoftware added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53187#1263323, @JonasToth wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53187#1263294, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
>
> > I think that with this optimization it is not so expensive anymore. I do
> > not think it was an endless loop in the bu
JonasToth added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53187#1263294, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> I think that with this optimization it is not so expensive anymore. I do not
> think it was an endless loop in the bugreport but it was insufferable
> execution time. Maybe we could speed it up a
baloghadamsoftware added a comment.
I think that with this optimization it is not so expensive anymore. I do not
think it was an endless loop in the bugreport but it was insufferable execution
time. Maybe we could speed it up a little more by changing it totally to a
width-first CFG visitor. Th
JonasToth added a comment.
This looks reasonable to me but could you please explain a bit what the issue
was in the bugreport? So a very deep hierarchy causing the problem makes sense,
but why was "ignoring first" the difference maker?
Would it make sense to add a warning in the documentation th
baloghadamsoftware created this revision.
baloghadamsoftware added reviewers: JonasToth, alexfh, aaron.ballman.
baloghadamsoftware added a project: clang-tools-extra.
Herald added subscribers: Szelethus, dkrupp, rnkovacs, xazax.hun, whisperity.
Checking whether a functions throws indirectly may be
10 matches
Mail list logo
