Details
Diff Detail
- Build Status
Buildable 1925 Build 1925: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
@chandlerc, Per our conversation on IRC: I'm sending this now just for informational purposes. I will rebase after you submit your outstanding patches.
llvm/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h | ||
---|---|---|
732–734 | FWIW, I continue to prefer "outer" and "inner". There is an inherent requirement that the smaller IR units in question be *contained* by the larger units. I'd like words that help indicate that relationship which is a stronger statement than their size IMO. | |
735–746 | All of this is fantastic though. =] | |
754 | Why the less precise member name? There are places where 'AM' is used and is *not* the same as the member, so it seems less ambiguous to give it some more specific name. | |
755 | I dislike using RHS for something that is not a binary operator. A lot of this delta isn't comment-only edits... | |
838–839 | s/update/invalidate/ | |
952 | on Function units -> on Functions | |
1061 | This isn't common for full-file-scoped namespaces in LLVM. See the last paragraph of http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#namespace-indentation |
llvm/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h | ||
---|---|---|
732–734 | I agree that containment is the relationship we ideally want to express. However I don't think that "outer" and "inner" are the right words to express that relationship. Consider two cases:
I am happy talking about inner and outer AMs, but I think we're overloading those words in a confusing way when we try to talk about inner/outer IR units. I've thought about this since last night and unfortunately I don't have a concrete suggestion other than "bigger" / "smaller" (written in quotes, as currently in the patch, to indicate the somewhat figurative use of these words). What if we just said
? Is that sufficient? If not I'll keep pondering this. |
llvm/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h | ||
---|---|---|
732–734 | I see the confusion you're hitting. For me, "smaller" and "larger" are if anything more confusing though, so I don't think they are an effective way to address the confusion. It just replaces one with another. I also don't have any concrete suggestions yet, but currently I would leave it as-is until we do have something that isn't such a tradeoff. I also wonder how much renaming these would help focus on the AMs being "inner" and "outer" rather than the IR units and address the confusion in that way. |
llvm/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h | ||
---|---|---|
732–734 | I'm fairly sure that outer and inner are the terms for nesting of loops in the literature, so it is what seems the less confusing to me when extended for other nested IRUnits. |
Address review comments, and in particular change smaller/larger -> inner/outer.
llvm/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h | ||
---|---|---|
732–734 | OK, I've rewritten to use "inner" and "outer" -- what do you think? | |
754 | Changed back; I don't feel strongly. In fact I reverted the comment deletion here too. | |
755 | Changed back to Arg -- I actually have no idea why I made that change in the first place. I'd offer to split out the non-comment changes, but in the patch I'm about to upload, they're (all?) gone anyway. | |
1061 | I got rid of it so there's no controversy. |
FWIW, I continue to prefer "outer" and "inner". There is an inherent requirement that the smaller IR units in question be *contained* by the larger units. I'd like words that help indicate that relationship which is a stronger statement than their size IMO.