search for: expensivecheck

...I'll clean that up. > Furthermore, the ifeq directive > needs to find "Debug" anywhere in $(BuildMode) not just if its equal to > "Build". That is, you want the warnings to occur when BuildMOde is > "Debug" or "Debug-Asserts" or "Debug+ExpensiveChecks" or any other > variant that includes "Debug". Yep, I wondered about that too. I'll fix it. > As a side note, you are ADDING something to the build rather than > subtracting so please use + instead of - in your BuildMode for > --enable-expensive-checks. That is, w...

...an > $(Echo) '*****' optimized build. Use 'make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1' to > $(Echo) '*****' make an optimized build. > endif > > This is the only place I can find AssertMode mentioned. I would much rather > keep things specified in BuildMode. I add "-ExpensiveChecks" to BuildMode > when --enable-expensive-checks is passed to configure (it is off by default). > This is what turns on -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG. That way I can keep around Debug > builds with and without expensive run-time checks. Yeah, this appears to be bug in this rule. It shouldn't...

...d can be 10 times slower than an $(Echo) '*****' optimized build. Use 'make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1' to $(Echo) '*****' make an optimized build. endif This is the only place I can find AssertMode mentioned. I would much rather keep things specified in BuildMode. I add "-ExpensiveChecks" to BuildMode when --enable-expensive-checks is passed to configure (it is off by default). This is what turns on -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG. That way I can keep around Debug builds with and without expensive run-time checks. In summary, it looks like the build system is a little confused and perhaps...

...egression tests). Each of these are > automated, making that easy. If there are no regressions from the > above four, we could tag that revision as being potentially "valid". Right. I would add one thing. We want to run these suites with Debug, Release, Release+Asserts and Debug+ExpensiveChecks builds. No one but me seems to run Debug+ExpensiveChecks tests because I see things break regularly. It's a valuable tool to find subtle C++ errors. -Dave

On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > Back during the LLVM developer's meeting, I talked with some of you > about a > proposal to "validate" llvm. Now that 2.4 is almost out the door, > it seems a > good time to start that discussion. > > I've written up a detailed proposal and attached it to this > message. The goal > is to ease

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:12 PM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > > Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this change as-is. The set of transforms that were added behind ExpensiveChecks seems awfully strange and many would not lead the reader to believe that they are expensive at all (the SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits and foldICmpUsingKnownBits calls being the obvious expensive routines). > > The purpose of many of InstCombine's xforms is to canonicalize the IR to ma...

On 03/17/2017 04:30 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > >> On Mar 17, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Mikhail Zolotukhin via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> One of the most time-consuming passes in LLVM middle-end is >> InstCombine (see e.g. [1]). It is a very powerful pass capable

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:12 PM, David Majnemer via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this change as-is. The set of transforms that were added behind ExpensiveChecks seems awfully strange and many would not lead the reader to believe that they are expensive at all (the SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits and foldICmpUsingKnownBits calls being the obvious expensive routines). > > The purpose of many of InstCombine's xforms is to canonicalize the IR to ma...

...rote: > > On 03/20/2017 11:51 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > > On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:12 PM, David Majnemer via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this change as-is. The set of transforms > that were added behind ExpensiveChecks seems awfully strange and many would > not lead the reader to believe that they are expensive at all > (the SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits and foldICmpUsingKnownBits calls > being the obvious expensive routines). > > The purpose of many of InstCombine's xforms is to canonicaliz...

Back during the LLVM developer's meeting, I talked with some of you about a proposal to "validate" llvm. Now that 2.4 is almost out the door, it seems a good time to start that discussion. I've written up a detailed proposal and attached it to this message. The goal is to ease LLVM use by third parties. We've got consideral experience with LLVM and the community

...;> >>>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:12 PM, David Majnemer via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this change as-is. The set of transforms that were added behind ExpensiveChecks seems awfully strange and many would not lead the reader to believe that they are expensive at all (the SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits and foldICmpUsingKnownBits calls being the obvious expensive routines). >>>> >>>> The purpose of many of InstCombine's xforms is to c...