On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Ariel Bernal <[email protected]>wrote:
> > klimek: I see the point of using DEBUG instead of llvm:outs(), but in > this case my intention was to have a summary independent of the way you > build source (with assertions) or whether some code underneath is using > llvm:dbgs() and polluting the summary. I know that it is not showing too > much info now, but the idea is to improve the summary e.g. list of files > that changed, etc.. > what do you think? > Makes sense... Just wanted to make sure it's a conscious decision :)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
