[PATCH] D88088: WIP [clang] improve accuracy of ExprMutAnalyzer

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

LGTM aside from a nit.



================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/ExprMutationAnalyzer.cpp:455
+  const auto HasAnyNonConstIterator =
+      anyOf(allOf(hasMethod(allOf(hasName("begin"), unless(isConst()))),
+                  unless(hasMethod(allOf(hasName("begin"), isConst())))),
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Do we want to look for methods that end with `_?[Bb]egin` or `_?[Ee]nd` so that this would catch patterns like `foo_begin()`/`foo_end()`, `FooBegin()`/`FooEnd()`, or `Foo_Begin()`/`Foo_End()`?
> This specific matcher is only applied in range-for contexts. There only the `begin(); end()` methods matter. I updated the comment above to clarify this.
Ah, okay, that makes a lot more sense, thanks!


================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Analysis/ExprMutationAnalyzerTest.cpp:65
+
+  std::string buffer;
   for (const auto *E = selectFirst<Expr>("expr", Results); E != nullptr;) {
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Was there a reason you hoisted this out of the `for` loop?
> Jup.
> ```
> buffer.clear()
> ```
> The current form does proper memory-recycling (i believe at least :D)
This smells like a micro-optimization to me (I think declaring the variable in the loop is more clear than clearing the buffer on each iteration).

I don't insist on changing it, but if you want to keep it, you should name it `Buffer` per our usual coding rules.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D88088/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D88088