Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "d2215".
Did you mean:
2215
2013 Nov 26
5
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
...stack traces misleading and very hard to reason
about.
Mostly, we are running in this issue with sanitizers, where we care
about performance (and therefore don't use -O0), but want stacktraces
to be mostly sane anyway.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2214
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2215
I've prepared two patches that deal with these issues by disabling
this and similar optimizations when building with sanitizers.
Would it be reasonable to disable these optimizations at -O1 instead?
2013 Nov 26
0
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
...to reason
> about.
>
> Mostly, we are running in this issue with sanitizers, where we care
> about performance (and therefore don't use -O0), but want stacktraces
> to be mostly sane anyway.
>
> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2214
> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2215
>
> I've prepared two patches that deal with these issues by disabling
> this and similar optimizations when building with sanitizers.
>
> Would it be reasonable to disable these optimizations at -O1 instead?
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Develope...
2013 Dec 02
0
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
...to reason
> about.
>
> Mostly, we are running in this issue with sanitizers, where we care
> about performance (and therefore don't use -O0), but want stacktraces
> to be mostly sane anyway.
>
> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2214
> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2215
>
> I've prepared two patches that deal with these issues by disabling
> this and similar optimizations when building with sanitizers.
>
> Would it be reasonable to disable these optimizations at -O1 instead?
This is a bit of a tangent, but there are other optimizations which
ex...