DonatNagyE wrote: > I think we haven't discussed yet the approach of applying the constraint to > every eqclass member. That would feel like defeating the purpose of eqclasses > at all.
I only mentioned it because from a high-level perspective it's equivalent to applying the constraint on the eqclass representative (and acts as a "simplified description" of that approach); I don't think that we should use it as an actual implementation. > To me, our best option so far is to keep the representative symbols alive and > canonicalize (replace) all sub-symbols in constraints with representatives > whenever we merge eqclasses or add constraints. Yes, that seems to be the best way forward. It would probably imply that we introduce an "undead" (=no longer reachable, but kept as a representative) state for symbols which seems to be inelegant, but I think that it won't cause actual problems during the implementation. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71284 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
