Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "printbeforethi".
Did you mean:
printbeforethis
2010 Mar 14
3
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Before/After IR Dumps
.../// before it.
+bool PrintBeforePass(Pass *P) {
Please just mark stand-alone functions "static" don't put them in anonymous namespaces. Typo in the comment. Please rename this to "ShouldPrintBeforePass", "PrintBeforePass" implies that it does printing.
+ bool PrintBeforeThis = PrintBeforeAll;
+ if (!PrintBeforeThis)
don't nest the entire function, use an early return like this:
if (PrintBeforeAll) return true;
+ for (unsigned i = 0; i < PrintBefore.size(); ++i) {
Don't evaluate PrintBefore.size() every time through the loop.
+ if (PassInf...
2010 Mar 12
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Before/After IR Dumps
On Friday 12 March 2010 08:13:05 Kalle Raiskila wrote:
> David Greene wrote:
> > Here's a rework using PassManager as Chris suggested. Comments?
>
> Tried this second patch with the svn version 97812 (the one the patch is
> made against), but it doesn't compile:
> "llvm/include/llvm/Pass.h:127: Error: expected unqualified-id before "&"
>
2010 Mar 12
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Before/After IR Dumps
David Greene wrote:
> Here's a rework using PassManager as Chris suggested. Comments?
Tried this second patch with the svn version 97812 (the one the patch is
made against), but it doesn't compile:
"llvm/include/llvm/Pass.h:127: Error: expected unqualified-id before "&"
token"
Seems raw_ostream is forward declared but not defined (adding a missing
#include
2010 Mar 15
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Before/After IR Dumps
...ctions "static" don't put them in anonymous
> namespaces.
Ok. Out of curiosity, why the preference for static?
> Typo in the comment. Please rename this to
> "ShouldPrintBeforePass", "PrintBeforePass" implies that it does printing.
Ok.
> + bool PrintBeforeThis = PrintBeforeAll;
> + if (!PrintBeforeThis)
>
> don't nest the entire function, use an early return like this:
Ok.
> + for (unsigned i = 0; i < PrintBefore.size(); ++i) {
> Don't evaluate PrintBefore.size() every time through the loop.
Ok, but that's a bit nitp...