Skip to content

[PassInstrumentation] Don't insert extra entries in getPassNameForClassName #150029

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 22, 2025
+6 −2
Merged

[PassInstrumentation] Don't insert extra entries in getPassNameForClassName #150029

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3c3ed5a
[PassInstrumentation] Make getPassNameForClassName return optional
danilaml Jul 22, 2025
16f12ce
Use empty StringRef instead of nullopt optional
danilaml Jul 22, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion llvm/include/llvm/IR/PassInstrumentation.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ class PassInstrumentationCallbacks {

/// Add a class name to pass name mapping for use by pass instrumentation.
LLVM_ABI void addClassToPassName(StringRef ClassName, StringRef PassName);
/// Get the pass name for a given pass class name.
/// Get the pass name for a given pass class name. Empty if no match found.
LLVM_ABI StringRef getPassNameForClassName(StringRef ClassName);

private:
Expand Down
6 changes: 5 additions & 1 deletion llvm/lib/IR/PassInstrumentation.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ template struct LLVM_EXPORT_TEMPLATE Any::TypeId<const Loop *>;

void PassInstrumentationCallbacks::addClassToPassName(StringRef ClassName,
StringRef PassName) {
assert(!PassName.empty() && "PassName can't be empty!");
ClassToPassName.try_emplace(ClassName, PassName.str());
}

Expand All @@ -33,7 +34,10 @@ PassInstrumentationCallbacks::getPassNameForClassName(StringRef ClassName) {
Fn();
ClassToPassNameCallbacks.clear();
}
return ClassToPassName[ClassName];
auto PassNameIter = ClassToPassName.find(ClassName);
if (PassNameIter != ClassToPassName.end())
return PassNameIter->second;
return {};
Copy link
Contributor

@nikic nikic Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
return {};
return "";

is a bit clearer, I think.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@danilaml danilaml Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't StringRef() different from StringRef("")? They'd compare the same, but go through different constructors (no need to check and store the string literal). Not that it'd matter, but at least in other places {} is used so I'd go for consistency.

}

AnalysisKey PassInstrumentationAnalysis::Key;
Expand Down