[PATCH] D79969: [LAA] We only need pointer checks if there are non-zero checks (NFC).

[Florian Hahn via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

fhahn marked an inline comment as done.
fhahn added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp:820
+  // object for example.
+  RtCheck.Need = CanDoRT ? RtCheck.getNumberOfChecks() != 0 : NeedRTCheck;
 
----------------
Ayal wrote:
> Sounds a bit confusing to continue having both `RtCheck.Need` and `NeedRTCheck`, where the former no longer simply caches the value of the latter. Could one be more accurately renamed?
I've considered removing `NeedRTCheck` and use `RtCheck.Need` directly, but there is at least one early exit, which would have `RtCheck.Need` not set, which may have additional implications. 

So I went with renaming `NeedRTCheck` to `MayNeedRTCheck` in the committed version, which should more accurately reflect what it represents. Please let me know if you think that's sufficient. Otherwise I am happy to do another round of renaming.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D79969/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D79969