benlangmuir added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/tools/clang-scan-deps/ClangScanDeps.cpp:802
for (unsigned I = 0; I < Pool.getThreadCount(); ++I) {
- Pool.async([I, &Lock, &Index, &Inputs, &HadErrors, &FD, &PD, &WorkerTools,
- &DependencyOS, &Errs]() {
+ Pool.async([&, I]() {
llvm::StringSet<> AlreadySeenModules;
----------------
Why are we second-guessing the `ThreadPool` at all? I would think we should do
```
for (unsigned Index = 0; E = Inputs.size(); Index + E; ++Index) {
Pool.async([Index, &]{ ... });
}
```
Then the thread pool is responsible for dispatching the tasks when it has
available resources instead of us manually looping inside the threads.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145101/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145101
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
