-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 786
[NFC] Refactor code annotations to make using them easier #7599
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.
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think these type aliases are beneficial. Users of
BranchLikely
still need to know that it is actually astd::optional<bool>
, so hiding that fact from them just introduces more friction. If we do want to introduce a new type name here, using a three-state enum is probably the way to go. Same forInline
below.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree users need to know likely is a bool and inline is an int. But I am trying to help in this way:
(Maybe an enforced type would be even better?)
For Inline, a 129-state enum..? 😉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about using
enum BranchLikeliness { Unlikely, Likely };
and a wrapper type with an explicit constructor:Then for the parameters in IRBuilder use
std::optional<BranchLikeliness>
andstd::optional<InlineHint>
. That puts the optionality where it belongs and makes call sites more readable.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The optionality is also needed in CodeAnnotation itself, not just as call params, since each hint is optional when stored (as appearing in the code before this PR). So we could have BranchLikeliness and InlineHint as you suggested - those look good - but we should also have a nice name for the optional of each of those, given the multiple uses in multiple places... and I don't have a good name idea for them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would just continue using
std::optional
explicitly wherever they need to be stored optionally. I generally don't think introducing a new name to avoid writingstd::optional
is a good trade off.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair enough. In that case, I'm not sure this PR is needed. I'll close it for now - maybe when we start using annotations in more places in the code, we'll have further thoughts on how to improve.