================
@@ -80,15 +78,56 @@ class OptTable {
const char *AliasArgs;
const char *Values;
- StringRef getName() const {
- unsigned PrefixLength = Prefixes.empty() ? 0 : Prefixes[0].size();
- return PrefixedName.drop_front(PrefixLength);
+ bool hasNoPrefix() const { return PrefixesOffset == 0; }
+
+ unsigned getNumPrefixes(ArrayRef<unsigned> PrefixesTable) const {
+ return PrefixesTable[PrefixesOffset];
+ }
+
+ ArrayRef<unsigned>
+ getPrefixOffsets(ArrayRef<unsigned> PrefixesTable) const {
+ return hasNoPrefix() ? ArrayRef<unsigned>()
+ : PrefixesTable.slice(PrefixesOffset + 1,
+
getNumPrefixes(PrefixesTable));
+ }
+
+ void appendPrefixes(const char *StrTable, ArrayRef<unsigned> PrefixesTable,
+ SmallVectorImpl<StringRef> &Prefixes) const {
+ for (unsigned PrefixOffset : getPrefixOffsets(PrefixesTable))
+ Prefixes.push_back(&StrTable[PrefixOffset]);
+ }
+
+ StringRef getPrefix(const char *StrTable, ArrayRef<unsigned> PrefixesTable,
+ unsigned PrefixIndex) const {
+ return &StrTable[getPrefixOffsets(PrefixesTable)[PrefixIndex]];
+ }
+
+ StringRef getPrefixedName(const char *StrTable) const {
+ return &StrTable[PrefixedNameOffset];
+ }
+
+ StringRef getName(const char *StrTable,
+ ArrayRef<unsigned> PrefixesTable) const {
+ unsigned PrefixLength =
+ hasNoPrefix() ? 0 : getPrefix(StrTable, PrefixesTable, 0).size();
+ return getPrefixedName(StrTable).drop_front(PrefixLength);
}
};
private:
+ // A unified string table for these options. Individual strings are stored as
+ // null terminated C-strings at offsets within this table.
+ const char *StrTable;
----------------
chandlerc wrote:
Happy to use a `StringRef` if folks want here.
I'm not sure about the exact construction though -- I think it'll be annoyingly
important that we use something that gets the accelerated implementations of
`strlen` when extracting strings from the table. And not sure that `StringRef`
has a good tool for doing that in a way that *also* tracks a bound.
But what's your preference about me cutting `StringRef` into the code as-is,
versus waiting and coming back through to add a dedicated string table
abstraction? Because that would let us have much nicer APIs compared to lifting
this into `StringRef`. And it'll have to touch almost exactly the same lines I
think.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119198
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
