search for: assertvh

...G and !NDEBUG built code freely without ABI issues is nice-to-have in my book, the functionality provided by AssertingVH is significantly more nice-to-have, and I don't see any easy ways to contain or limit the exposure of this facility to library-level consumers. > > I hadn’t considered AssertVH, and I agree that losing it isn’t an option. > > Would it be possible to redesign AssertVH to be non-ABI fragile across debug/release builds? I haven’t looked at it recently, but maybe it could be a pointer to a CallbackVH in the debug mode, or a PointerUnion<rawpointer, callbackvh> o...

...rmix NDEBUG and !NDEBUG built code freely without ABI issues is nice-to-have in my book, the functionality provided by AssertingVH is significantly more nice-to-have, and I don't see any easy ways to contain or limit the exposure of this facility to library-level consumers. I hadn’t considered AssertVH, and I agree that losing it isn’t an option. Would it be possible to redesign AssertVH to be non-ABI fragile across debug/release builds? I haven’t looked at it recently, but maybe it could be a pointer to a CallbackVH in the debug mode, or a PointerUnion<rawpointer, callbackvh> or somethin...

Hello, I am working on the the "Global Variable Optimizer" pass. I'd like to modify this pass to be more aggressive. Therefore I need the call graph. The call graph contains AssertVHs of all functions. If the "Global Variable Optimizer" pass identifies a function to be delete able it will be deleted immediately by this pass. The call graph is not destroyed before. That's why deleting a function leads to an assert in Value.cpp: "While deleting: i32 (...)* %ass...

On Nov 11, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> Even when you have a !NDEBUG build, the platform assert() is pretty >> crummy on Windows and generates, at best a UTF-16 dump, or sometimes >> just pops up a dialog. WebKit and other projects take the same approach >> and define their own assertion macros to deal with this portably. >>