================ @@ -3734,7 +3734,10 @@ void FunctionProtoType::Profile(llvm::FoldingSetNodeID &ID, QualType Result, // spec because of the leading 'bool' which unambiguously indicates // whether the following bool is the EH spec or part of the arguments. + // TODO: The effect set is variable-length, though prefaced with a size. + // Does this create potential ambiguity? ---------------- Sirraide wrote:
Just happened to take a look at this commit so I’ll comment on it: You should be fine so long as you *always* unconditionally include the size; we also do this in other places: if there is no effect set, the size will always be `0`, so any ID that has no effect set has `0` in that position; if the size is non-zero, then we know that the next size*`n` (where `n` is however many bytes it takes to profile an effect, assuming that that’s constant) bytes will be the effects. Basically, so long as they never ‘overlap’ w/ anything / so long as you can think of a way to ‘reverse’ the profiling (not that we ever do that), then it should be fine. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84983 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
