On Jan 15, 2010, at 6:57 AM, David Greene wrote:> On Wednesday 13 January 2010 16:10, David Greene wrote: >> This patch adds a couple of interfaces to dump full or partial >> SelectionDAGs. The current code only prints the top-level >> SDNode. This patch makes it much easier to understand >> CannotYetSelect errors and those sorts of things. In particular, >> it helped me track down PR6019. >> >> Any objections to committing? > > Ping?Is it ever desirable to pass false to the "limit" argument? Otherwise this looks ok. Dan
On Friday 15 January 2010 13:16, Dan Gohman wrote:> Is it ever desirable to pass false to the "limit" argument?Not in the usual course of things but I figured someday someone might want to dig deeper. "limit" is just a heuristic and it could be wrong. Maybe the SelectionDAG is really just huge.> Otherwise this looks ok.I'll check it in and if we think "limit" should go away, I'll follow up with another patch. -Dave
On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:31 AM, David Greene wrote:> On Friday 15 January 2010 13:16, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> Is it ever desirable to pass false to the "limit" argument? > > Not in the usual course of things but I figured someday someone > might want to dig deeper. "limit" is just a heuristic and it > could be wrong. Maybe the SelectionDAG is really just huge."limit" is just the flag that controls whether or not a message is printed. It seems the message would always be either useful or harmless.> >> Otherwise this looks ok. > > I'll check it in and if we think "limit" should go away, I'll > follow up with another patch.Ok. Dan