-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
C++: Abstractions for treating qualifiers as parameters in IR #4702
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
416431a
C++: Add convenience predicates for working with qualifiers as parame…
MathiasVP f3b5d7b
C++/C#: Sync identical files
MathiasVP c7efc91
C++: Use the new predicates in IR dataflow.
MathiasVP 6ead6c6
Merge branch 'main' into qualifier-as-parameter-for-callee
MathiasVP f173dc7
C++: Use shorter names for new IR predicates. This should hopefully g…
MathiasVP 61bbceb
C++/C#: Sync identical files
MathiasVP a7644db
C++: Use the new names in IR dataflow. Turns out DataFlowCall had its…
MathiasVP 08f8660
C++/C#: Add pragma[noinline] to hasIndex predicates.
MathiasVP 9d21b22
Merge branch 'main' into qualifier-as-parameter-for-callee
MathiasVP File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The implementation of this predicate looks a lot like
getArgumentOperand, but only the latter haspragma[noinline]on it. Is there a good reason to putpragma[noinline]on one but not the other?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm, no. I suspect the
pragma[noinline]is an artifact of me copy/pasting fromgetPositionalArgumentOperand. I'll just double-check that I can safely remove the newpragma[noinline]s.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm... looking at this comment you made, I'd actually feel more comfortable adding a
pragma[noinline]to thehasIndexpredicates. It doesn't seem to be necessary right now, but if it avoids a future bad join-order we might as well put it there now. Would that be reasonable?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes.