Summary:
It was pointed out by @chandlerc that it's not clear whether both applyUpdates and insert/deleteEdge can be used to perform multiple updates.
IMO, the confusing part was that the comment above applyUpdates made a comparison of expected update time between calling it and calling insert/deleteEdge multiple times. It's generally not possible to safely call insert/deleteEdge multiple times, which documentation for each of the 3 functions warns about, so the whole comparison makes very little sense. On top of that, the comment is already lengthy, so I think it's best to just get rid of this comparison.
Reviewers: chandlerc, asbirlea, NutshellySima, grosser
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, chandlerc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49944
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@338184
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
/// CFG about its children and inverse children. This implies that deletions
/// of CFG edges must not delete the CFG nodes before calling this function.
///
- /// Batch updates should be generally faster when performing longer sequences
- /// of updates than calling insertEdge/deleteEdge manually multiple times, as
- /// it can reorder the updates and remove redundant ones internally.
- /// The batch updater is also able to detect sequences of zero and exactly one
- /// update -- it's optimized to do less work in these cases.
+ /// The applyUpdates function can reorder the updates and remove redundant
+ /// ones internally. The batch updater is also able to detect sequences of
+ /// zero and exactly one update -- it's optimized to do less work in these
+ /// cases.
///
/// Note that for postdominators it automatically takes care of applying
/// updates on reverse edges internally (so there's no need to swap the