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

[Zachary Turner via llvm-commits]

I believe the idea is that all the extraneous explicit StringRef
constructions would go away over time as global tables are updated to hold
StringRefs, functions are updated to stop returning const char *, etc.

With that in mind, it might be worth getting appropriate clang-tidy checks
upstreamed. For example, if someone changes a method from returning a const
char * to returning a StringRef, existing code that wrote
foo(StringRef(bar()) could be rewritten as just foo(bar()), but no warning
or error would be issued.

So having a check like --llvm-unnecessary-stringref-construction would make
sure we can remove these as we are able to
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:12 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> (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/20161017/268cebc2/attachment.html>