[LCG] Switch the SCC lookup to be in terms of call graph nodes rather
than functions. So far, this access pattern is *much* more common. It
seems likely that any user of this interface is going to have nodes at
the point that they are querying the SCCs.
No functionality changed.
llvm-svn: 207045
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.cpp
index 4ad6375..d317938 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.cpp
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@
bool HasOtherCallOutsideSCC = false;
for (Node *N : *this) {
for (Node *Callee : *N) {
- SCC *OtherCalleeC = G.SCCMap.lookup(&Callee->F);
+ SCC *OtherCalleeC = G.SCCMap.lookup(Callee);
if (OtherCalleeC == &CalleeC) {
HasOtherCallToCalleeC = true;
break;
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@
Node *ChildN = *I;
// If this child isn't currently in this SCC, no need to process it.
// However, we do need to remove this SCC from its SCC's parent set.
- SCC *ChildSCC = G.SCCMap.lookup(&ChildN->F);
+ SCC *ChildSCC = G.SCCMap.lookup(ChildN);
assert(ChildSCC &&
"Everything reachable must already be in *some* SCC");
if (ChildSCC != this) {
@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@
for (Node *ChildN : *N) {
if (NewNodes.count(ChildN))
continue;
- SCC *ChildSCC = G.SCCMap.lookup(&ChildN->getFunction());
+ SCC *ChildSCC = G.SCCMap.lookup(ChildN);
assert(ChildSCC &&
"Must have all child SCCs processed when building a new SCC!");
ChildSCC->ParentSCCs.insert(this);
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@
CallerN.Callees.erase(CallerN.Callees.begin() + IndexMapI->second);
CallerN.CalleeIndexMap.erase(IndexMapI);
- SCC *CallerC = SCCMap.lookup(&CallerN.F);
+ SCC *CallerC = SCCMap.lookup(&CallerN);
if (!CallerC) {
// We can only remove edges when the edge isn't actively participating in
// a DFS walk. Either it must have been popped into an SCC, or it must not
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@
assert(CalleeN && "If the caller is in an SCC, we have to have explored all "
"its transitively called functions.");
- SCC *CalleeC = SCCMap.lookup(&Callee);
+ SCC *CalleeC = SCCMap.lookup(CalleeN);
assert(CalleeC &&
"The caller has an SCC, and thus by necessity so does the callee.");
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@
"We cannot have a low link in an SCC lower than its root on the "
"stack!");
- SCCMap[&SCCN->getFunction()] = NewSCC;
+ SCCMap[SCCN] = NewSCC;
NewSCC->Nodes.push_back(SCCN);
bool Inserted =
NewSCC->NodeSet.insert(&SCCN->getFunction());
@@ -412,7 +412,7 @@
for (Node *SCCChildN : *SCCN) {
if (NewSCC->NodeSet.count(&SCCChildN->getFunction()))
continue;
- SCC *ChildSCC = SCCMap.lookup(&SCCChildN->getFunction());
+ SCC *ChildSCC = SCCMap.lookup(SCCChildN);
assert(ChildSCC &&
"Must have all child SCCs processed when building a new SCC!");
ChildSCC->ParentSCCs.insert(NewSCC);
@@ -443,7 +443,7 @@
if (SI->first->DFSNumber == 0) {
// This node hasn't been visited before, assign it a DFS number and remove
// it from the entry set.
- assert(!SCCMap.count(&SI->first->getFunction()) &&
+ assert(!SCCMap.count(SI->first) &&
"Found a node with 0 DFS number but already in an SCC!");
SI->first->LowLink = SI->first->DFSNumber = NextDFSNumber++;
SCCEntryNodes.remove(&SI->first->getFunction());