mattdr added a comment.
Some more comments. FWIW, I'm doing rounds of review as I can in some evening
quiet or during my son's nap. This is a huge change and it's really hard to get
any part of it into my head at once in a reasonable amount of time.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/X86/ImmutableGraph.h:73
+ // The end of this Node's edges is the beginning of the next node's edges.
+ const Edge *edges_end() const { return (this + 1)->Edges; }
+ ArrayRef<Edge> edges() const {
----------------
sconstab wrote:
> mattdr wrote:
> > Seems like you also want to add a comment here that we know we will never
> > be asked for `edges_end` for the last stored node -- that is, we know that
> > `this + 1` always refers to a valid Node (which is presumably a
> > dummy/sentinel)
> Not sure I agree. I cannot think of a conventional use of this interface that
> would perform an operation on the sentinel.
> ```
> G->nodes_end().edges_end(); // invalid use of any end iterator
> SomeNode.edges_end(); // invalid if SomeNode == G->nodes_end()
> ```
> That is, the way that we "know" that we will never be asked for `edges_end()`
> for the last stored node is that the ask itself would already violate C++
> conventions.
I believe any operation on the last `Node` in the array will end up accessing
the sentinel:
```
Node* LastNode = G->nodes_begin() + (G->nodes_size() - 1); // valid reference
to the last node
LastNode->edges_end(); // uses `this+1`, accessing the sentinel value in the
Nodes array
```
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/X86/ImmutableGraph.h:79
+
+protected:
+ ImmutableGraph(std::unique_ptr<Node[]> Nodes, std::unique_ptr<Edge[]> Edges,
----------------
sconstab wrote:
> mattdr wrote:
> > Why "protected" rather than "private"? Usually seeing "protected" makes me
> > think subclassing is expected, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
> The `MachineGadgetGraph` class actually does subclass `ImmutableGraph` to add
> some contextual information. I did not want the constructors for
> `ImmutableGraph` to be public, because the intent is to use the builder. So
> `protected` seemed like the best option.
Ah, I missed that. I searched through the file for `public ImmutableGraph` and
didn't find it because `MachineGadgetGraph` uses the default inheritance
specifier.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86LoadValueInjectionLoadHardening.cpp:83-85
+#define ARG_NODE nullptr
+#define GADGET_EDGE ((int)(-1))
+#define WEIGHT(EdgeValue) ((double)(2 * (EdgeValue) + 1))
----------------
Please replace these with constants or functions.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86LoadValueInjectionLoadHardening.cpp:113
+ NumFences(NumFences), NumGadgets(NumGadgets) {}
+ MachineFunction &getMF() { // FIXME: This function should be cleaner
+ for (const Node &N : nodes())
----------------
sconstab wrote:
> mattdr wrote:
> > Cleaner how?
> Maybe by keeping a member reference to the associated `MachineFunction`?
Let's put that in the comment instead.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75936/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75936
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
