Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "voidifier".
Did you mean:
modifier
2011 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you explain how it avoids evaluating the arguments in the false case? I
> looked at the code but it's pretty complex.
>
Essentially it expands to something like:
!(Ty == STy) ? (void)0 : Voidifier() & llvm::dbgs() << ...
where you have something vaguely along the lines of
struct Voidifier {
void operator&(raw_ostream &);
};
The conditional expression ensures that the side-effects of the LHS and RHS
are contained, while allowing the convenient syntax. The voidifier hack...
2011 Jul 27
3
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The assertions in LLVM would be a lot more useful if they could print out
>> not only the source code of the expression that failed, but also print the
>> values of the various arguments. To that end, I
2011 Aug 09
2
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
...11 at 3:31 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can you explain how it avoids evaluating the arguments in the false case?
>> I looked at the code but it's pretty complex.
>>
>
> Essentially it expands to something like:
>
> !(Ty == STy) ? (void)0 : Voidifier() & llvm::dbgs() << ...
>
> where you have something vaguely along the lines of
>
> struct Voidifier {
> void operator&(raw_ostream &);
> };
>
> The conditional expression ensures that the side-effects of the LHS and RHS
> are contained, while allowing...