To get the successors of a BB we currently do successors(BB) which
ultimately walks the successors of the BB's terminator.
This moves the iterator to TerminatorInst as thats what we're actually
using to do the iteration, and adds a member function to TerminatorInst
to allow us to iterate directly over successors given an instruction.
For example, we can now do
for (auto *Succ : BI->successors())
instead of
for (unsigned i = 0, e = BI->getNumSuccessors(); i != e; ++i)
Reviewed by Tobias Grosser.
llvm-svn: 244074
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
I removed the copy ctor, thinking that'd be the end of it - these
iterators should be perfectly assignable even from disjoint ranges (as
any iterator would be) - exkcept that the member was const.
Unconstify it.
llvm-svn: 231146
There's no reason to disallow assigning an iterator from one range to an
iterator that previously iterated over a disjoint range. This then
follows the Rule of Zero, allowing implicit copy construction to be used
without hitting the case that's deprecated in C++11.
llvm-svn: 231142
Accidentally committed a few more of these cleanup changes than
intended. Still breaking these out & tidying them up.
This reverts commit r231135.
llvm-svn: 231136
There doesn't seem to be any need to assert that iterator assignment is
between iterators over the same node - if you want to reuse an iterator
variable to iterate another node, that's perfectly acceptable. Just
don't mix comparisons between iterators into disjoint sequences, as
usual.
llvm-svn: 231135
The functions {pred,succ,use,user}_{begin,end} exist, but many users
have to check *_begin() with *_end() by hand to determine if the
BasicBlock or User is empty. Fix this with a standard *_empty(),
demonstrating a few usecases.
llvm-svn: 225760
Summary: This patch introduces two new iterator ranges and updates existing code to use it. No functional change intended.
Test Plan: All tests (make check-all) still pass.
Reviewers: dblaikie
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4481
llvm-svn: 213474
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
