[llvm-dev] [PATCH] Add support for the 'unless' matcher in the dynamic layer.

[Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev]

Is, but it is still a lot of typing and we are talking about debuging.

2016-07-27 3:40 GMT-07:00 Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>:

> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:06 AM Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> We could also just add nothing() matcher, so debugging would be much
>> easier, just add anything() or nothing() matcher as extra argument.
>>
>> The other pros of it is that new developers won't send the patches that
>> uses those variadic matchers with only one argument.
>>
>
> We already have anything() and unless(anything()).
>
>
>>
>> 2016-07-26 16:02 GMT-07:00 Zac Hansen via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>>
>>> Even if it still did add overhead, it seems perfectly reasonable, from a
>>> user's perspective (namely mine), that if I introduce unnecessary narrowing
>>> matchers to my chain that there may be a performance penalty.
>>>
>>> The ability to do the following easily outweighs any performance issues
>>> for me:
>>>
>>>
>>> anyOf (
>>> /*    hasName("..."), */
>>>     hasName("...")
>>>
>>> )
>>>
>>> though C++ not allowing trailing commas makes this not quite as great.
>>>
>>>
>>> *However, without help, I would not be able to put forward a patch with
>>> anything more than simply removing the minimums.*
>>>
>>> Would this be acceptable or would someone be able to point me at what it
>>> would take to do it the "smart way" in less time than it would take them to
>>> make the change themselves?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Samuel Benzaquen <sbenza at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the reasons we added the minimum was because these nodes added
>>>> overhead to the matching that was not unnecessary when they only had a
>>>> single node.
>>>> On the current implementation we could actually get rid of the node
>>>> completely for the one argument calls.
>>>> I would be ok with removing the lower bound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Zac Hansen <xaxxon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if there is any objection to removing the 2-element
>>>>> minimum on the eachOf, anyOf and allOf matchers.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is frustrating when playing with matchers to have to edit
>>>>> significant amounts of code to be able to temporarily go from 2 to 1
>>>>> matcher inside an any- or allOf matcher.
>>>>>
>>>>> And overall it feels very "un-set-theory"-like.
>>>>>
>>>>> The change was made here:
>>>>> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/commit/674e54c167eab0be7a54bca7082c07d2f1d0c8cc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you and apologies if I sent this to the wrong lists/people.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Zac
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160727/54a4062a/attachment.html>