search for: dout

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 10:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > > How do output hex in DOUT's ? > > Please don't use DOUT, please use: > > DEBUG(errs() << stuff); > > instead. I've got some more DOUT-involving patches in the queue. Is this a general design choice that's been made? If so I can change the patches to use errs() instead, but the choi...

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 18:24, Chris Lattner wrote: > The big issue is things like this: > > DOUT << foo.getName() << "\n"; > > When -debug is disable and even when assertions are turned off, > foo.getName() is still called. When you use: Yep, that's a problem. > DEBUG(errs() << foo.getName() << "\n"); > > When assertions are...

How do output hex in DOUT's ? Thanks, Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090804/5dbbd4f7/attachment.html>

On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > How do output hex in DOUT's ? Please don't use DOUT, please use: DEBUG(errs() << stuff); instead. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090804/cda5fe94/attachment.html>

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:52, Chris Lattner wrote: > I'd prefer for it to be eliminated, but it is currently used widely. > If your patches don't make it substantially worse, I won't have a > problem with them. Bonus points for removing DOUTs though :) Ok, this is good to know. With some of these patches I will have opportunities to remove DOUTS. What's the rationale for getting rid of it? -Dave

>>How do output hex in DOUT's ? >Please don't use DOUT, please use: > > DEBUG(errs() << stuff); > >instead. Okay, I will modify my code. But how do I do hexadecimal output ? Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipe...

On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:50 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2009 10:46, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> How do output hex in DOUT's ? >> >> Please don't use DOUT, please use: >> >> DEBUG(errs() << stuff); >> >> instead. > > I've got some more DOUT-involving patches in the queue. Is this > a general design choice that's been made? If so I can change the >...

On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> A debug or release build? >> >> -bw > > Both, actually. Weird. I see a potential problem, though. The code is like this: void dumpToDOUT(SparseBitVector<> *bitmap) { dump(*bitmap, DOUT); } where dump expects an llvm::OStream& for the second argument. However, when NDEBUG is #defined, DOUT is "llvm::OStream(0)", so it can't be passed by reference. -bw

...u mean here. It's not ok to convert code under DEBUG() or > #ifndef NDEBUG to use dbgs()? Right. > Then what's the point of providing it? I don't know what dbgs does, so I don't know! > My intent is to have dbgs() == errs() when debug mode is disabled. Do you know why DOUT was removed? The problem is that things like this: DOUT << foo(); evaluate foo even when assertions are disabled. This is bad, and bringing it back with a new name is not good. >>> There are some tricky cases where dump routines are used either to >>> print error messa...

...Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:52, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> I'd prefer for it to be eliminated, but it is currently used widely. >> If your patches don't make it substantially worse, I won't have a >> problem with them. Bonus points for removing DOUTs though :) > > Ok, this is good to know. With some of these patches I will have > opportunities to remove DOUTS. Nice! Thanks, > What's the rationale for getting rid of it? The big issue is things like this: DOUT << foo.getName() << "\n"; When -debug i...

What replaced the old DOUT? I'm working on sending debug code upstream and one of the things I want to add is circular buffering for debug output. This is a real help when processing large files. So I need a stream that can act differently than errs(). Should I just create one? -Dave

On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Aaron Gray wrote: > >>How do output hex in DOUT's ? > > >Please don't use DOUT, please use: > > > > DEBUG(errs() << stuff); > > > >instead. > > Okay, I will modify my code. But how do I do hexadecimal output ? > raw_ostream has a write_hex method. O << "foo: "; O.write_he...

On Thursday 10 December 2009 17:53, Chris Lattner wrote: > > So I would write the above as: > > > > DEBUG(dbgs() << foo); > > > > Does that sound reasonable? > > If you're asking if a new dbgs() might be useful, "yes if specified well". > If you're asking if you can convert everything to using it, "no". I'm not sure

...behavior. dbgs() works very similarly to the formatted_raw_ostream in that it uses errs() underneath to do the actual output and only does the circular buffering and delayed output if requested. > > My intent is to have dbgs() == errs() when debug mode is disabled. > > Do you know why DOUT was removed? Yes and no. I know the reasons given for removing it, but I believe they are a bit misguided. DOUT was not the problem. Not using DEBUG was the problem. > The problem is that things like this: > > DOUT << foo(); > > evaluate foo even when assertions are di...

Hello, David > What replaced the old DOUT? DEBUG(errs() << foo); The reason is quite simple - DOUT in release mode was just /dev/null, but the functions sending data to it were still called. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

On Thursday 10 December 2009 16:30, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, David > > > What replaced the old DOUT? > > DEBUG(errs() << foo); > > The reason is quite simple - DOUT in release mode was just /dev/null, > but the functions sending data to it were still called. errs() is no good. I would want to keep errs() printing things out immediately. I need something else that buffers...

2009/8/5 David Greene <dag at cray.com> > On Tuesday 04 August 2009 18:24, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > The big issue is things like this: > > > > DOUT << foo.getName() << "\n"; > > > > When -debug is disable and even when assertions are turned off, > > foo.getName() is still called. When you use: > > Yep, that's a problem. > Right ! > > > DEBUG(errs() << foo.getName() <&lt...

...the actual output and only does the circular buffering > and delayed output if requested. It seems like there is better ways to handle this (i.e. split the input into smaller chunks) but I'm not opposed to the general idea. >> The problem is that things like this: >> >> DOUT << foo(); >> >> evaluate foo even when assertions are disabled. This is bad, and bringing >> it back with a new name is not good. > > That's not what I'm proposing. > > DOUT << foo(); > > is broken. It should have been written as: >...

..., Constant::getNullValue(ATy), "OptimalEdgeProfCounters1", &M); Initializer[0] = zeroc; Initializer[1] = minusonec; Initializer[2] = minusonec; Initializer[3] = zeroc; Constant *init = llvm::ConstantArray::get(ATy, Initializer); Counters->setInitializer(init); DOUT << "Initializer:: \n"; for( int i = 0; i < Initializer.size(); ++i ) { DOUT << "Initializer["<<i<<"]: " << Initializer[i] << "\n"; } } static void andiTest2(Module &M) { int NumEdges = 4; const ArrayType...

On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:46 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 10 December 2009 16:30, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> Hello, David >> >>> What replaced the old DOUT? >> >> DEBUG(errs() << foo); >> >> The reason is quite simple - DOUT in release mode was just /dev/null, >> but the functions sending data to it were still called. > > errs() is no good. I would want to keep errs() printing things out > immediately....