forked from llvm/llvm-project
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 344
Support hermetic index store data via path remappings #4207
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 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
836e3f0
Support remapping index store paths
DavidGoldman c50d6c2
Swap to indexstore_store_create_with_options
DavidGoldman 3b53e89
Add documentation comments to indexstore.h
DavidGoldman c394fb8
indexstore_creation_options_create() --> indexstore_creation_options_…
DavidGoldman a0248b7
Don't make stdout absolute
DavidGoldman dd5dc70
Add PathRemapper utility class
DavidGoldman 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
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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 think it'd be nice to extract this out into a separate data structure. IIUC there's no need for this to be a map other than that it's convenient (though not really) to pass around. So if we had a separate class for this it could internally just store a SmallVector of
<struct with original and remap path>
.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, and as an input to the API I think conceptually it should be an array of string pairs. Whether then the underlying implementation uses a
std::map
or allvm::StringMap
for the lookups, it would be an implementation detail.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.
FWIW I don't think a "lookup" is ever actually performed, we only ever iterate over them all and check whether there's a prefix match (hence my suggestion of a SmallVector internally).
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 was mirroring how Clang stores its prefix maps: https://cs.github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/0f304ef0170231b860a249f34e07f50686392253/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.h#L87 and https://cs.github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/0f304ef0170231b860a249f34e07f50686392253/clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h#L421. I can change this to be more like how Swift does it (they're different, like you mentioned)
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.
Ideally those wouldn't be maps either 😅. So these are checked in alphabetical order rather than the order they were given on the CLI?
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.
Yes, that's my understanding. I think it would make sense to clean up, but not sure it's in scope for here. Thoughts?
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'd say it's worth making whatever you add usable in those cases, but we'd want to fix that upstream anyway (so no, not in scope).