================
@@ -720,16 +713,30 @@ SrcSafetyAnalysis::create(BinaryFunction &BF,
RegsToTrackInstsFor);
}
-static std::shared_ptr<Report>
+static BriefReport<MCPhysReg> make_generic_report(MCInstReference Location,
+ StringRef Text) {
+ auto Report = std::make_shared<GenericDiagnostic>(Location, Text);
+ return BriefReport<MCPhysReg>(Report, std::nullopt);
+}
+
+template <typename T>
+static BriefReport<T> make_report(const GadgetKind &Kind,
+ MCInstReference Location,
----------------
kbeyls wrote:
If the first function is called `make_generic_report`, would it be more
consistent to call the second function `make_gadget_report`?
I started wondering if it'd be possible to unify the two functions into a more
general templated function, something like
```
template <typename DiagT, typename DiagParam, typename ReqDetailsT>
static BriefReport<T> make_brief_report(MCInstReference Location, DiagParam P,
ReqDetailsT ReqDetails) {
auto Report = std::make_shared<DiagT>(Location, P);
return BriefReport<T>(Report, ReqDetails);
}
```
and then it gets called like
`make_brief_report<GenericDiagnostic, StringRef, MCPhysReg>(Location, Text,
std::nullopt)` or
`make_brief_report<GadgetDiagnostic, GadgetKind, RequestedDetailsT>(Location,
Kind, RequestedDetails)`
(sorry, haven't spent time thinking about reducing the number of explicit
template parameters).
I'm guessing you might have thought about this and come to the conclusion that
having two `make_report` functions is better?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135662
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
