Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "d13259".
Did you mean:
d13251
2015 Nov 02
2
Prefixing DEBUG messages with DEBUG_TYPE (was re: [PATCH] D13259: LLE 6/6: Add LoopLoadElimination pass)
...YPE(t, dbgs() << t <<":" <<
x;)
#define DEBUG_MSG(x) DEBUG_MSG_WITH_TYPE(DEBUG_TYPE, x)
Suggestions, however, welcome!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D13259: LLE 6/6: Add LoopLoadElimination pass
To: anemet at apple.com, hfinkel at anl.gov, dberlin at dberlin.org
Cc: mssimpso at codeaurora.org, sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com,
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13259#278362, @dberlin wrote:
> I...
2015 Nov 02
4
Prefixing DEBUG messages with DEBUG_TYPE (was re: [PATCH] D13259: LLE 6/6: Add LoopLoadElimination pass)
...<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 1:16:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Prefixing DEBUG messages with DEBUG_TYPE (was re: [PATCH] D13259: LLE 6/6: Add
> LoopLoadElimination pass)
>
> To ask a basic question first: Why do we need prefixes at all? Are
> the messages that likely to be confused? As far as I understand this
> case it was only mentioned because of inconsistent prefix/no-prefix
> use, there was no indica...