================
@@ -80,6 +80,28 @@ llvm::MDNode *CodeGenTBAA::getChar() {
return Char;
}
+llvm::MDNode *CodeGenTBAA::getAnyPtr(unsigned PtrDepth) {
+ assert(PtrDepth >= 1 && "Pointer must have some depth");
+
+ // Populate at least PtrDepth elements in AnyPtrs. These are the type nodes
+ // for "any" pointers of increasing pointer depth, and are organized in the
+ // hierarchy: any pointer <- any p2 pointer <- any p3 pointer <- ...
----------------
brunodf-snps wrote:
I've extended the comment based on your suggestion, let me know what you think!
> I'm suggesting `>` here rather than arrows because I think it expresses the
> subtype relationship more clearly, but I might be abnormally comfortable with
> subtyping lattices, so let me know what you think.
Yeah, I did not find this very clear. I used arrows to express the parent
relationships. I don't think it is common to describe TBAA type nodes with
subtyping, whereas "parent" is the term used in the documentation and API? I
can still adapt this if you or others prefer[^1].
[^1]: I will say that I'm more used to the symbol `<:` for the subtype
relationship, e.g.:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126047
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
