[PATCH] D25639: Add ctor for string literal to StringRef, and make explicit the conversion from const char *

[David Blaikie via llvm-commits]

(for my money the readability loss of adding StringRef(...) all over the
place doesn't seem quite worth it, but I'm not going to stand in the way of
the change or anything.)

Are these changes necessarily joined - or is the explicitness of the
StringRef(...) ctor independent of the addition of the template?

Do we need to worry about the recursive strlen in the template ctor? Or is
it clear that even in a non-constexpr context the compilers we care about
produce reasonable performance?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:57 AM Manuel Klimek via llvm-commits <
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> klimek added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25639#571344, @zturner wrote:
>
> > The only thing I'm not crazy about here is that the clang tidy check
> seems to blindly replace all calls to `s.c_str()` with
> `llvm::StringRef(s.c_str())`.  Is there any way to make it attempt to
> replace it with just `s` first, and only if that fails do you then try
> `llvm::StringRef(s.c_str())`?
>
>
> Shouldn't it be relatively straight forward to discover whether the
> expression is convertible to StringRef without the .c_str() call from an
> AST matcher?
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D25639
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20161017/ecb1f087/attachment.html>