[PATCH] D58170: [DTU] Refine the interface and logic of applyUpdates

[Jakub Kuderski via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

kuhar added a comment.

In D58170#1404458 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58170#1404458>, @NutshellySima wrote:

> In D58170#1404415 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58170#1404415>, @kuhar wrote:
>
> > I think the default for applyUpdates should be the `strict` mode; any code that relies on imprecise information about updates should make it clear by using some longer name, like `applyUpdatesRelaxed`.
>
>
> I'm fine with making `applyUpdates` default to `strict` mode to make it consistent to other parts of the codebase and encourage people to use the `strict` one which does not have extra overhead on scanning the CFG.
>
> But if the user follows the rules on using `applyUpdatesRelaxed/Checked`, DTU is also guaranteed to have precise information on updates.


Agreed. Since this turned into yak shaving, how about `appplyUpdatesPermissive`? To me `applyUpdatesRelaxed` sounds similar to relaxed memory models, where you can have more interleaving, and `applyUpdatesChecked` implies that it does more checks, but is not necessarily functionally different.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D58170/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D58170