================
@@ -208,7 +208,12 @@ class BoxedProcedurePass
mlir::IRRewriter rewriter(context);
BoxprocTypeRewriter typeConverter(mlir::UnknownLoc::get(context));
mlir::Dialect *firDialect = context->getLoadedDialect("fir");
- getModule().walk([&](mlir::Operation *op) {
+ llvm::SmallVector<mlir::Operation *> operations;
+
+ getModule().walk([&](mlir::Operation *op) { operations.push_back(op); });
----------------
jeanPerier wrote:
Are you sure it is invalid to erase IR in the walk? I understand why
`opIsValid` is needed and that it was bad to go through the region of erased
ops, but I think a walk in post order is supposed to allow erasing operations:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/881df557501d339c7a14b16d68e43da5c732b424/mlir/include/mlir/IR/Operation.h#L767
Is there still a sanitizer issue when introducing `opIsValid` without creating
the `operations` vector?
I am a bit concerned with copying the pointer of all the module operations into
a SmallVector. On big Fortran applications with hundred of thousands of line in
one file, the module will contain millions of operations (I doubt this go above
the ~500 millions element capacity of the SmallVector), but it may be overkill
for a pass that is not expected to modify a lot of IR (procedure pointers and
dummy procedures are usually not all over the place).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84376
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
