From 4d7b439ea8d0d0c03d53cdc53ae419887b161d07 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <ramkumar.ramachandra@codasip.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 20:19:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [LAA] Prefer set-contains over set-count (NFC)

Improve code by preferring {SmallSet,SmallPtrSet}::contains() over the
count() function, when used in a boolean context.
---
 llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp | 19 ++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
index 9a7d361b5b512..c65bb8be8b996 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ void RuntimePointerChecking::groupChecks(
   for (unsigned I = 0; I < Pointers.size(); ++I) {
     // We've seen this pointer before, and therefore already processed
     // its equivalence class.
-    if (Seen.count(I))
+    if (Seen.contains(I))
       continue;
 
     MemoryDepChecker::MemAccessInfo Access(Pointers[I].PointerValue,
@@ -1212,7 +1212,7 @@ bool AccessAnalysis::canCheckPtrAtRT(
     SmallVector<MemAccessInfo, 4> AccessInfos;
     for (const Value *ConstPtr : ASPointers) {
       Value *Ptr = const_cast<Value *>(ConstPtr);
-      bool IsWrite = Accesses.count(MemAccessInfo(Ptr, true));
+      bool IsWrite = Accesses.contains(MemAccessInfo(Ptr, true));
       if (IsWrite)
         ++NumWritePtrChecks;
       else
@@ -1341,9 +1341,10 @@ void AccessAnalysis::processMemAccesses() {
   LLVM_DEBUG({
     for (const auto &[A, _] : Accesses)
       dbgs() << "\t" << *A.getPointer() << " ("
-             << (A.getInt() ? "write"
-                            : (ReadOnlyPtr.count(A.getPointer()) ? "read-only"
-                                                                 : "read"))
+             << (A.getInt()
+                     ? "write"
+                     : (ReadOnlyPtr.contains(A.getPointer()) ? "read-only"
+                                                             : "read"))
              << ")\n";
   });
 
@@ -1387,13 +1388,13 @@ void AccessAnalysis::processMemAccesses() {
 
           // If we're using the deferred access set, then it contains only
           // reads.
-          bool IsReadOnlyPtr = ReadOnlyPtr.count(Ptr) && !IsWrite;
+          bool IsReadOnlyPtr = ReadOnlyPtr.contains(Ptr) && !IsWrite;
           if (UseDeferred && !IsReadOnlyPtr)
             continue;
           // Otherwise, the pointer must be in the PtrAccessSet, either as a
           // read or a write.
           assert(((IsReadOnlyPtr && UseDeferred) || IsWrite ||
-                  S.count(MemAccessInfo(Ptr, false))) &&
+                  S.contains(MemAccessInfo(Ptr, false))) &&
                  "Alias-set pointer not in the access set?");
 
           MemAccessInfo Access(Ptr, IsWrite);
@@ -2260,7 +2261,7 @@ bool MemoryDepChecker::areDepsSafe(const DepCandidates &AccessSets,
   MinDepDistBytes = -1;
   SmallPtrSet<MemAccessInfo, 8> Visited;
   for (MemAccessInfo CurAccess : CheckDeps) {
-    if (Visited.count(CurAccess))
+    if (Visited.contains(CurAccess))
       continue;
 
     // Check accesses within this set.
@@ -2605,7 +2606,7 @@ bool LoopAccessInfo::analyzeLoop(AAResults *AA, const LoopInfo *LI,
 
     // See if there is an unsafe dependency between a load to a uniform address and
     // store to the same uniform address.
-    if (UniformStores.count(Ptr)) {
+    if (UniformStores.contains(Ptr)) {
       LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "LAA: Found an unsafe dependency between a uniform "
                            "load and uniform store to the same address!\n");
       HasLoadStoreDependenceInvolvingLoopInvariantAddress = true;