martinboehme wrote: > Draft to demo how we can pull out the boolean model. Let's discuss specifics > of namings, location, etc.
Not sure -- do you mean let's wordsmith names now, or do you mean we should discuss naming and location, but that should happen after we've talked about the general approach? > The purpose of this refactoring is to enable us to compare the performance of > different boolean models. In particular, we're interested in investigating a > very simple semantic domain of just the booleans (and Top). Can you expand on how we would swap in a different boolean model? * Just put `#ifdef`s in the various functions in `bool_model`? * Provide different namespaces containing different boolean models, then in `namespace bool_model`, do `using namespace my_desired_bool_model`? * Something else? I would favour a model that's as simple as possible -- I don't think we want to use template parameters, for example -- and what you have here looks like it's intended to be simple. I'm just not sure exactly where this is intended to go? > In the process, the PR drastically simplifies the handling of terminators. > This cleanup can be pulled out into its own PR, to precede the refactoring > work. I like the cleanup, and I think pulling it out into a separate patch is a good idea because a) it's unrelated to the rest of this patch, and b) it can land today, without further discussion needed (IMO). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82950 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
