[PATCH] D134072: [Support] Provide access to the full mapping in llvm::Annotations

[Sam McCall via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

sammccall added a comment.

It would be great to understand a bit more about how/where this is used. (It looks like out-of-tree, but I can't find the actual testcases in question).

> using the annotations as expectations

This was something deliberately left out of the original design. Names for lookup vs payload metadata on the points are IMO better expressed as separate concerns. The former was much more pressing and we had less experience with the latter so left it out. We're currently coming back to it in D137909 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137909>, a syntax like `$foo(bar)` will be used to attach data `bar` to a point named `foo`.

For these methods (which I just learned about in reviewing that patch), we could do some combination of:

- leave them exactly as-is (payloads not exposed)
- adapt them mechanically to the data model with payloads
- remove them and then redesign something for the use case using payloads (e.g. if they're not really used and payload is a better fit for the planned usecase)


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D134072/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D134072