User Details
- User Since
- Apr 12 2016, 8:44 PM (362 w, 4 d)
Mon, Feb 27
Replace TE->Scalars with VL, as suggested.
I think this is the cause of the crash: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144895
@ABataev could you take a look ?
Feb 15 2023
Hi - I noticed it doesn't appear that getIFuncList was actually made private by this one.
Thanks, let me fix it.
Feb 14 2023
Yeah sorry about that, I reverted it here: b5f239363a3 Revert "[NFC][IR] Make Module::getGlobalList() private"
And what is this needed for / what will this be used for?
This is to make it easier to track changes to the attributes for Checkpointing, but regardless I think this is generally useful e.g., for debugging, as you can watch all changes from a single point.
It funnels all changes to attributes through a single function, which makes it really easy to track all attribute changes from a single point.
Rebase
Removed commented out lines from ModuleTest.cpp
Rebase
Feb 13 2023
Rebase
Rebase
Addressed comments
Rebase
Jan 30 2023
Removed newline
Jan 13 2023
Jan 10 2023
Rebase
Jan 9 2023
Dec 16 2022
BB->eraseFromParent() is a better option.
If the intention is to make it behave like a container, then the erase method should take an iterator.
But who would possibly use it if it requires a BB reference to call the method? It is kind of easier and safer to just I->eraseFromParent().
I don't mind adding this, just don't see how it can be useful.
I->eraseFromParent() now calls BasicBlock::erase(BB). Also BasicBlock::erase(BB) now calls InstList.erase() directly instead of calling BasicBlock::erase(FromIt, ToIt).
It is exactly the same. There is no super strong reason for having both functions.
The main reason is that the BB behaves like a list as it implements begin(), end(), size(), splice() etc. so not having an erase(I) function looks strange.
Up until now one could simply do BB->getInstList().erase(I), instead of I->eraseFromParent(), so this function is covering this case.
Dec 15 2022
Rebase
Rebase
Dec 14 2022
Fixed a couple more files that were missing from the original patch.
Both examples should now be fixed. Updated the doc too. Thanks for your help @aeubanks .