search for: assertvhs

On Jan 3, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> While having different components of LLVM and consumers of LLVM able to intermix 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

On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > > > The key thing then is to make sure that it's safe to enable the > > assertions in the headers if an application is built with !NDEBUG and > > linked against an NDEBUG version of LLVM. > > Sounds great. I'm pretty confident that there will be no problems - in practice

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 (...)* %asse...

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. >>