[cfe-dev] Refactoring the dominators patch for Clang

[Ted Kremenek]

On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Anna Zaks wrote:

> 
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Anna Zaks wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On llvm's side, it would involve changing the recalculate function to use getEntryBlock instead of front(). Looks like they are the same thing.
>>>> 
>>>> On Clang's side, we could just rename CFG::getEntry()  -> CFG::getEntryBlock().
>>> 
>>> Both of these seem reasonable to me.
>>> 
>> 
>> Looking back at this comment, I think the Dominators algorithm should not rely on the existence of a 'getEntryBlock()' and really just being using GraphTraits that can get the entrance of the graph.  We shouldn't have to rename anything in the CFG just to get the dominators analysis to work.  If we are missing a concept, that is one thing, but renaming something means that the dominators analysis is relying on particular methods being present.  That just feels really wrong to me.  As I mentioned in another email I just sent, there is also no reason for the dominators analysis to have any notion of "basic blocks" either since it is a generic graph algorithm.
> 
> Ted, this comment is from before Guoping pointed out that this function name is not the only inconsistency between Function and CFG (at that point it seemed fine to just make a simple change to get the patch through). With the new approach, where we change the dominators to use GraphTraits, it will handle this case as well. There is getEntryBlock() method in the GraphTraits.

Indeed.  I figured this would be handled by using GraphTraits for everything, but I wanted to amend my previous comment for posterity.  :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20111107/7d336150/attachment.html>