[PATCH] D124395: [clang][dataflow] Optimize flow condition representation

[Stanislav Gatev via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

sgatev marked an inline comment as done.
sgatev added a comment.

In D124395#3472974 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124395#3472974>, @xazax.hun wrote:

> Nice! Did you do some measurements? Does this improve the performance or decrease the memory consumption?

I didn't do any measurements :( I implemented this as I'd like to add context-aware join (what we do for booleans, preserving flow condition context) to `UncheckedOptionalAccessModel` and don't really want to make the current approach a pattern. I suspect this could also be useful when modeling other language constructs.



================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowAnalysisContext.h:160
+  void addFlowConditionConstraint(AtomicBoolValue &Token,
+                                  BoolValue &Constraint);
+
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> Could this be const?
I think no because we need to pass it to `getOrCreateDisjunctionValue` and `getOrCreateNegationValue`, and their sub-values are not `const` currently.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowAnalysisContext.h:213
+  //
+  // Flow conditions can depend on other flow conditions (constraints can refer
+  // to flow condition tokens). The graph of flow condition dependencies is
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> I think an example would be nice what "depending on" a flow condition means. A simplistic example with a nested if would probably be the easiest to understand.
> 
I didn't add an example, but I rephrased this section after adding the `forkFlowCondition` and `joinFlowConditions` methods. Let me know what you think.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/FlowSensitive/DataflowEnvironment.cpp:184-185
+  FlowConditionToken = &DACtx->makeFlowConditionToken();
+  DACtx->addFlowConditionDependency(*FlowConditionToken,
+                                    *Other.FlowConditionToken);
+  DACtx->addFlowConditionConstraint(*FlowConditionToken,
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> Do we ever expect to call these functions independently of each other? If no, maybe `addFlowConditionDependency` should add the constraint as well.
I added `forkFlowCondition` and `joinFlowConditions` methods so dependencies are an implementation detail now.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D124395/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D124395