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
On Friday 15 January 2010 13:41, Dan Gohman wrote:> 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.Ah, yes, you're correct. I goofed there. The message should be printed and "limit" should control whether we actually check the depth. Sound good? -Dave
On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:51 AM, David Greene wrote:> On Friday 15 January 2010 13:41, Dan Gohman wrote: >> 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. > > Ah, yes, you're correct. I goofed there. The message should be > printed and "limit" should control whether we actually check > the depth. > > Sound good? reimplementUnlimited-recursion dumping is what the existing dump routines already do, so it's a little odd to have a flag to allow these new dump routines to do the same thing. I guess you could refactor the old ones to call the new ones and eliminate some redundant code, if you wanted. Dan