[PATCH] D78106: [CSInfo][NFC] Interpret loaded parameter value separately

[Djordje Todorovic via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

djtodoro added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.cpp:780
 
-  // If the MI is an instruction defining one or more parameters' forwarding
-  // registers, add those defines.
-  auto getForwardingRegsDefinedByMI = [&](const MachineInstr &MI,
-                                          SmallSetVector<unsigned, 4> &Defs) {
-    if (MI.isDebugInstr())
-      return;
-
-    for (const MachineOperand &MO : MI.operands()) {
-      if (MO.isReg() && MO.isDef() &&
-          Register::isPhysicalRegister(MO.getReg())) {
-        for (auto FwdReg : ForwardedRegWorklist)
-          if (TRI->regsOverlap(FwdReg.first, MO.getReg()))
-            Defs.insert(FwdReg.first);
-      }
-    }
-  };
-
-  // Search for a loading value in forwarding registers.
-  for (; I != MBB->rend(); ++I) {
+  auto nextInstrInterpret = [&](const MachineInstr *CurMI,
+                                FwdRegWorklist &ForwardedRegWorklist,
----------------
djtodoro wrote:
> djtodoro wrote:
> > vsk wrote:
> > > What does nextInstrInterpret need to capture via [&]?
> > Also the `getForwardingRegsDefinedByMI` does not need to capture via [&].
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D79616
Sorry for the confusion.
After the conversation from D79616, I realized that default reference capturing is recommended by the LLVM Style Guide when lambda does not escape its context.

But anyway, this lambda (`nextInstrInterpret`) captures by reference but it does not use any data from the function, so the `[&]` could be deleted. Furthermore, maybe `nextInstrInterpret` could be factored out into a static function?  I am OK with either way.
@vsk WDYT?

In addition:

`nextInstrInterpret` -> `interpretNextInstr` ?




CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D78106/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D78106