Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "emitmiss".
Did you mean:
emitmissed
2017 Sep 16
3
RFC: Use closures to delay construction of optimization remarks
Another alternative could be:
ORE.emitMissed(DEBUG_TYPE, ...) << ...
Then the first line of emitMissed does a check if it is enabled and if not
then returns a dummy stream that does nothing for operator<< (and
short-circuits all the stream operations)
On Sep 15, 2017 2:21 PM, "Adam Nemet via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at...
2017 Sep 17
2
RFC: Use closures to delay construction of optimization remarks
> On Sep 16, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually maybe something like:
>
> if (auto &E = ORE.emitMissed(DEBUG_TYPE)) {
> E.emit(...) << ...;
> }
Well, the point of this interface was exactly to avoid writing a conditional. If you’re willing to use a conditional you can already write this:
if (ORE.allowExtraAnalysis(DEBUG_TYPE))
ORE.emit(OptimizationRemark(…) << …;
But agai...
2017 Sep 19
0
RFC: Use closures to delay construction of optimization remarks
...6, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 16, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Actually maybe something like:
>>
>> if (auto &E = ORE.emitMissed(DEBUG_TYPE)) {
>> E.emit(...) << ...;
>> }
>
> Well, the point of this interface was exactly to avoid writing a conditional. If you’re willing to use a conditional you can already write this:
>
> if (ORE.allowExtraAnalysis(DEBUG_TYPE))
> ORE.emit(Optimizati...