================
@@ -88,10 +88,12 @@ class ModelDumper {
void dump(Value &V) {
JOS.attribute("value_id", llvm::to_string(&V));
- if (!Visited.insert(&V).second)
- return;
-
JOS.attribute("kind", debugString(V.getKind()));
+ if (!Visited.insert(&V).second) {
+ JOS.attribute("[in_cycle]", " ");
+ return;
+ }
+ auto EraseVisited = llvm::make_scope_exit([&] { Visited.erase(&V); });
----------------
sam-mccall wrote:
(Less invasive ideas that might be useful either way: "undefined" is a bug
which can be fixed. Duplicate nodes could/should also be made a different color)
I think showing a subtree twice is a pretty serious misrepresentation of the
data, probably more so than pruning children from a duplicated node. There's no
easy + perfect way to show a DAG in a tree-browser. It'd be possible to make
this more explicit (e.g. have a "duplicate node" box contain a link to an
anchor on the original node). But it's complexity, and if you *don't* care
about the DAG structure then it's still not ideal.
> I assume your concern is that we could have data structures with lots and
> lots of repeated values, and this would bloat the JSON? Do we actually know
> that this is a problem though?
Yes, I believe I saw this. I don't remember the details though, and it might
have involved the old BoolValue subclasses that bloated the tree.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66887
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
