Hi Eli, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Eli Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Daniel Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Author: ddunbar >> Date: Tue Nov 11 18:01:12 2008 >> New Revision: 59094 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=59094&view=rev >> Log: >> Disable generation of basic block names in NDEBUG mode. >> >> Revert to enabling generation of instruction names when not in NDEBUG >> mode. > > Is this really a good idea? Normally NDEBUG doesn't change the > visible behavior of the program.
One response would be that the names on LLVM instructions aren't intended to be part of the "visible" behavior of the compiler. Actually, I would prefer this was always a runtime option, but the current design of the IRBuilder class is basing this off a template parameter. But in practice, is this a bad idea? What are you concerned about? The missing names triggering some different behavior in the backend which results in a bug that only shows up in Release-Asserts mode? - Daniel > -Eli > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
