Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "no_that".
2013 Dec 02
3
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
...option, but it would be nice to move beyond
> -O1 with reasonable confidence that stack traces would be preserved. Would
> others be interested in such a feature?
I can't say I'm interested in that, but it shouldn't be too different
than a module-level #pragma optimize (no_this, no_that), which could
be supported if the table of flags has a rich enough semantics.
cheers,
--renato
2013 Dec 02
0
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
On 11/26/13 3:57 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there are optimizations, mostly dealing with hoisting/merging common
> code including function calls, that breaks stack trace symbolization
> in a very bad way.
>
> int f(int x) {
> if (x == 1)
> report("a");
> else if (x == 2)
> report("b");
> return 0;
> }
>
2013 Dec 03
0
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
...e nice to move beyond
>> -O1 with reasonable confidence that stack traces would be preserved. Would
>> others be interested in such a feature?
>
> I can't say I'm interested in that, but it shouldn't be too different
> than a module-level #pragma optimize (no_this, no_that), which could
> be supported if the table of flags has a rich enough semantics.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman...
2013 Nov 26
5
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
Hi,
there are optimizations, mostly dealing with hoisting/merging common
code including function calls, that breaks stack trace symbolization
in a very bad way.
int f(int x) {
if (x == 1)
report("a");
else if (x == 2)
report("b");
return 0;
}
For example, in the above function (at -O1) both calls to report() are
done from the same PC. As a result, stack trace