[PATCH] D72475: [WIP] Build assume from call

[Tyker via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

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


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/KnowledgeRetention.cpp:68
+  };
+  return getTuple(LHS) < getTuple(RHS);
+}
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> Tyker wrote:
> > jdoerfert wrote:
> > > I don't think we should use the name here. We can use the pointer value, if that makes sense, but not the name as it can be changed which would break the invariant.
> > I reordered element in the tuple. so that names comes last because this is what enabled the best algorithm for query.
> > 
> > Regarding ordering by pointer or not ordering at all. i think that this will make the output non-deterministic or relying on the allocator. if it is fine to for it to be non-deterministic. we could fix the printing to prevent spurious test failures. query function can deal with any order.
> I can see why we do not want the non-deterministic order so no sorting by pointer. Now the name thing is still an issue. We should not rely on names whatsoever, if changing a name influences the result of a query is not what we want because it leads to hard to debug interactions of things that are unrelated.
with the current query API the order by name doesn't affect the results. it is just used as a way to prevent non-determinism.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475