of methods like
Foo getFoo() const { return m_foo; }
where we can rather do
const Foo& getFoo() const { return m_foo; }
and let the client code decide if it wants copy Foo.
Inspired by a performance problem where we were unwittingly
copy constructing a large struct repeatedly just so client code
could interrogate the members of the struct.
When all of the changes this plugin finds are applied, I find
that 'perf stat make check' shows on average a 1.7% reduction
in CPU cycles.
Change-Id: Ic27b4f817aa98f2a2a009f2d4e4a962cbe9c613e
This should fix a regression from 3bdd176731c351638f541a37b94094124f3c9f52,
apparently the cppcheck's advice is misleading.
Change-Id: I427ecaa1eb3c9841cb6112997b9b51feda4583d0
Only consider base declarations, not overriden ones, or we warn on methods that
are overriding stuff from external libraries.
Change-Id: I08791c96f7adba5997ad237a98e7c08a759042ad
Detect arguments larger than 64 chars passed by value.
Change-Id: I9b0ea9ccb99d115984a26eab67c9cf6afd5f6cae
Signed-off-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
