similar to: [LLVMdev] Debug Output for Assert Builds?

On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> A debug or release build? >> >> -bw > > Both, actually. Weird. I see a potential problem, though. The code is like this: void dumpToDOUT(SparseBitVector<> *bitmap) { dump(*bitmap, DOUT); } where dump expects an llvm::OStream& for the

On 2020-04-10, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev wrote: >#ifndef NDEBUG in the LLVM source and assert() are at least somewhat >linked. For instance, consider >https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8423a6f36386aabced2a367c0ea53487901d31ca/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/IndVarSimplify.cpp#L2668 > >The #ifndef NDEBUG is used to guard the value that checked in an >assert() later. Only

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:59 AM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > David, > > > > In my opinion, NDEBUG is one of those gross old C things that everybody > complains about. It’s called “Not Debug”, but really it means “Assert > Disabled”. I think one could be forgiven for actually using it as a > heuristic of whether or not a build

Hi all, During discussions about assertions in the Flang project, we noticed that there are a lot of cases in LLVM that #ifndef NDEBUG is used as a guard for non-assert code that we want enabled in debug builds. This works fine on its own, however it affects the behaviour of LLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS; since NDEBUG controls whether assertions are enabled or not, a lot of debug code gets enabled in

The LLVM 3.4 branches are now frozen. We’re only accepting major, super horrible bug fixes from now on. The testers are going to do a third phase of testing, but it’s mostly to verify that we don’t have any major problems left. Share and enjoy! -bw

On 9/25/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On 9/24/07, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > > > Weird. I see a potential problem, though. The code is like this: > > > > void dumpToDOUT(SparseBitVector<> *bitmap) { > > dump(*bitmap, DOUT); > > } >

Bill, et al., There are still a number of open bug reports demonstrating miscompiles on x86 with small/reduced test cases. I propose that we either delay this release until these have been fixed, or plan on a point release in the near future. I recommend that we put out another two release candidates, one at the end of this week, and one after another two weeks or so, to allow for these

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: > > >> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which ASSERT's in >> VC++'s vector[] implementation (when _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING is on). >> >> As a work-around, I commented out the debug

On 9/24/07, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > > > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > > >> A debug or release build? > >> > >> -bw > > > > Both, actually. > > Weird. I see a potential problem, though. The code is like this: > >

On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:57 AM, srs wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: >> >> >>> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >>> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which >>> ASSERT's in >>> VC++'s vector[] implementation (when

On 8/24/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > so how about turning it on? > > It sounds good, but I'm concerned about darwin/x86. Bill, can you see how > well darwin/x86 is doing these days? If there are no regressions from > turning this on by default, we should do it. :) > I'm assuming that this is 4.2? :-) I'll give it a try. -bw

A debug or release build? -bw On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Did someone forget to check-in a patch? I'm getting this error during >> compilation on PPC: > > A recent checkout compiled fine for me (on x86). > >>

While we support compilation with CFLAGS=-DNDEBUG for the brave user desiring to avoid assertion overhead, this causes the tests to be less powerful. Fortunately, a quick test of './configure CFLAGS=-DNDEBUG' didn't hit any test failures, but it seems better to just ensure that assertions always work in our tests, even if they are turned off for the main binary. Signed-off-by: Eric

without tabs Lauro 2006/12/20, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com>: > > Hi Lauro, > > Just a stylistic remark; In your "llvm.patch" file, there are tabs in > these lines: > > + if (GV->hasExternalWeakLinkage()) { > + ExtWeakSymbols.insert(GV); > + } > > Others will need to review the patch for correctness, though. >

Hi again, On my PPC G4 box, I'm getting this failure for TOT with llvm-gcc 4.2: Running /Users/wendling/llvm/llvm.src/test/CodeGen/X86/dg.exp ... FAIL: /Users/wendling/llvm/llvm.src/test/CodeGen/X86/2008-02-18- TailMergingBug.ll for PR1909 Failed with exit(1) at line 1 while running: llvm-as < /Users/wendling/llvm/llvm.src/test/CodeGen/ X86/2008-02-18-TailMergingBug.ll | llc -march=x86

Hi, I keep getting this error during compilation: llvm[2]: ======= Finished Linking Debug Executable llvm-dis llvm[2]: Compiling opt.cpp for Debug build llvm[2]: Linking Debug executable opt /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: llvm::PATypeHolder::get() const collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [/Users/wendling/llvm/llvm/Debug/bin/opt] Error 1 make[1]: *** [opt/.makeall] Error 2 make:

On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > A debug or release build? > > -bw Both, actually. > On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> >> On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Did someone forget to check-in a patch? I'm getting this error >>> during

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:57 AM, srs wrote >> Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >>>> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which

That’s a long laundry list of bugs there. It would be great to have them fixed, but the reality of the situation is that they won’t be fixed for weeks or more, if at all. And with Christmas coming up, it makes things even worse. There are a few days before Phase III starts to have some progress on them. But if they don’t make it, then we’ll have to release without them. -bw On Dec 12, 2013, at

Good point, I forgot to check the standard. Given the clang was failing I assumed the code was wrong x). I am guessing there is something weird with the project, because indeed, paragraph 7.2 of the standard says: The assert macro is redefined according to the current state of NDEBUG each time that <assert.h> is included. > On Oct 4, 2017, at 2:53 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at