[PATCH] D54246: [clang-tidy] Add the abseil-duration-factory-scale check

[Haojian Wu via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

hokein added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/DurationFactoryScaleCheck.cpp:36
+GetScaleForFactory(llvm::StringRef FactoryName) {
+  static const auto *ScaleMap =
+      new std::unordered_map<std::string, DurationScale>(
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> hwright wrote:
> > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > This will cause memory leaks, so may be unique_ptr should be used to hold pointer? May be LLVM ADT has better container?
> > This is a tradeoff between leaking a small amount of known memory for the duration of the program, and constructing this map every time this function is invoked.  Since I expect the latter to occur frequently, that's a tradeoff I think is acceptable.   (Ideally, this would be a compile-time constant, but sadly we don't yet have a `constexpr` dictionary type.)
> > 
> > Of course, if there is a more typical way of doing that here, I'm happy to use it.
> Why did you not use a static value type?
I think main reason is lazy initialization.


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/DurationFactoryScaleCheck.cpp:22
+// Potential scales of our inputs.
+enum class DurationScale {
+  Hours,
----------------
nit: wrap it in anonymous namespace? 


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/DurationFactoryScaleCheck.cpp:74
+  case DurationScale::Minutes:
+    if (Multiplier == 60.0)
+      return DurationScale::Hours;
----------------
we are comparing with floats, I think we should use something `AlmostEquals(Multiplier, 60.0)`.


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/DurationFactoryScaleCheck.cpp:202
+  // Don't try and replace things inside of macro definitions.
+  if (InsideMacroDefinition(Result, Call->getSourceRange()))
+    return;
----------------
isn't `Call->getExprLoc().isMacroID()` enough?


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/abseil/DurationFactoryScaleCheck.cpp:266
+  if (DivBinOp) {
+    DivBinOp->dumpColor();
+    // For division, we only check the RHS.
----------------
is this for debugging?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D54246