================
@@ -4181,6 +4185,127 @@ class FunctionNoProtoType : public FunctionType, public
llvm::FoldingSetNode {
}
};
+class FunctionEffect;
+class FunctionEffectSet;
+
+// It is the user's responsibility to keep this in set form: elements are
+// ordered and unique.
+// We could hide the mutating methods which are capable of breaking the
+// invariant, but they're needed and safe when used with STL set algorithms.
+class MutableFunctionEffectSet : public SmallVector<const FunctionEffect *, 4>
{
+public:
+ using SmallVector::insert;
+ using SmallVector::SmallVector;
+
+ /// Maintains order/uniquenesss.
+ void insert(const FunctionEffect *effect);
+
+ MutableFunctionEffectSet &operator|=(FunctionEffectSet rhs);
+};
+
+class FunctionEffectSet {
+public:
+ // These sets will tend to be very small (1 element), so represent them as
+ // sorted vectors, which are compatible with the STL set algorithms. Using an
+ // array or vector also means the elements are contiguous, keeping iterators
+ // simple.
+
+private:
+ // 'Uniqued' refers to the set itself being uniqued. Storage is allocated
+ // separately. Use ArrayRef for its iterators. Subclass so as to be able to
+ // compare (it seems ArrayRef would silently convert itself to a vector for
+ // comparison?!).
+ class UniquedAndSortedFX : public llvm::ArrayRef<const FunctionEffect *> {
+ public:
+ using Base = llvm::ArrayRef<const FunctionEffect *>;
+
+ UniquedAndSortedFX(Base Array) : Base(Array) {}
+ UniquedAndSortedFX(const FunctionEffect **Ptr, size_t Len)
+ : Base(Ptr, Len) {}
+
+ bool operator<(const UniquedAndSortedFX &rhs) const;
+ };
+
+ // Could have used a TinyPtrVector if it were unique-able.
+ // Empty set has a null Impl.
+ llvm::PointerUnion<const FunctionEffect *, const UniquedAndSortedFX *> Impl;
+
+ explicit FunctionEffectSet(const FunctionEffect *Single) : Impl(Single) {}
+ explicit FunctionEffectSet(const UniquedAndSortedFX *Multi) : Impl(Multi) {}
+
+public:
+ using Differences =
+ SmallVector<std::pair<const FunctionEffect *, bool /*added*/>>;
----------------
shafik wrote:
This is consistent with
[bugprone-argument-comment](https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/argument-comment.html)
which we use. I don't think it catches this case but consistency is nice.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84983
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
