[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy] add check to suggest replacement of nested std::min or std::max with initializer lists (PR #85572)

[via cfe-commits]

sopyb wrote:

> `std::initializer_list` version std::min/std::max will reduce performance in some cases. Please ignore the check for
> 
> 1. non-trivial class: https://godbolt.org/z/77ooaGzh6
> 2. large object: https://godbolt.org/z/14xoz8dnK

Thank you for your feedback! I'm grateful for your attention to potential performance impacts related to the use of std::initializer_list with std::min/std::max.

I think the aim of a moderniser check is to enhance code readability and adhere to modern C++ standards, so by default I think modernizing the codebase should be the priority. I'd like to explore the possibility of incorporating performance considerations as an option within the check.

@PiotrZSL, your expertise has been incredibly helpful throughout the process of making my first contribution. I value your perspective on whether we should provide an option within the check to skip addressing code with potential performance implications or have it as the default behavior. This way, users can choose if to prioritize performance or focus solely on code modernization.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how I should proceed. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85572