Hi all,
after seeing a near inifinite stream of "Checking instruction
''" from
bugpoint, I thought to improve that a bit. Turns out that bugpoint outputs the
name, which is often empty (especially for the big bitcodes you want to pull
through bugpoint :-).
Below patch changes the behaviour to output the assembly version of the
instruction instead of the name, which makes things a bit clearer. Is this ok
to commit?
I've two doubts here. First, was there a particular reason to not do this in
the first place? Performance perhaps? Shouldn't matter so much, I guess?
Second, I'm including <sstream> directly. Is this allowed, or should
there be
some LLVM wrapper just as for <iostream> ? (Code was copied from
instcombine, though).
Gr.
Matthijs
Index: CrashDebugger.cpp
==================================================================---
CrashDebugger.cpp (revision 54012)
+++ CrashDebugger.cpp (working copy)
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
#include "llvm/Support/FileUtilities.h"
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
#include <fstream>
+#include <sstream>
#include <set>
using namespace llvm;
@@ -469,7 +470,9 @@
} else {
if (BugpointIsInterrupted) goto ExitLoops;
- std::cout << "Checking instruction '"
<< I->getName() << "': ";
+ std::ostringstream SS; I->print(SS);
+
+ std::cout << "Checking instruction '"
<< SS.str() << "': ";
Module *M = BD.deleteInstructionFromProgram(I, Simplification);
// Find out if the pass still crashes on this pass...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080725/e58af24a/attachment.sig>
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:> Hi all, > > after seeing a near inifinite stream of "Checking instruction ''" from > bugpoint, I thought to improve that a bit. Turns out that bugpoint > outputs the > name, which is often empty (especially for the big bitcodes you want > to pull > through bugpoint :-). > > Below patch changes the behaviour to output the assembly version of > the > instruction instead of the name, which makes things a bit clearer. > Is this ok > to commit?Cool, sure, looks fine with one change.> I've two doubts here. First, was there a particular reason to not do > this in > the first place? Performance perhaps? Shouldn't matter so much, I > guess? > Second, I'm including <sstream> directly. Is this allowed, or should > there be > some LLVM wrapper just as for <iostream> ? (Code was copied from > instcombine, though).<iostream> is the only "poisoned" header, all other stream headers are ok. Also, for bugpoint, we don't really care... we care in the libraries primarily.> @@ -469,7 +470,9 @@ > - std::cout << "Checking instruction '" << I->getName() > << "': "; > + std::ostringstream SS; I->print(SS); > + > + std::cout << "Checking instruction '" << SS.str() << > "': ";Instead of using sstream, why not just use "... << *I << "? -Chris
> <iostream> is the only "poisoned" header, all other stream headers are > ok. Also, for bugpoint, we don't really care... we care in the > libraries primarily.Ah, good to know.> > + std::cout << "Checking instruction '" << SS.str() << > Instead of using sstream, why not just use "... << *I << "?Excellent point. If I had remembered that, I would probably have committed it right away :-p Gr. Matthijs -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080725/129c17ba/attachment.sig>