dblaikie added a comment.
In D103615#2847704 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847704>, @bmahjour wrote:
>> (generally: disabling the test in non-asserts builds isn't the right path,
>> modifying the test so it doesn't depend on asserts IR naming is the right
>> path)
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Yes, probably removing the entry: check would be sufficient - give it a test
>> locally and see how it goes. (it does mean the "CHECK-NEXT" after that (for
>> the first instruction) would have to be a plain "CHECK" - so that the test
>> could pass both in the presence and absence of the entry label.
>
> Right.
>
>> Yeah, seems like a weird choice to me too (though has been around a long
>> time, so folks are pretty used to it) - might be worth bringing it up on
>> llvm-dev. I think we now have a flag to enable this functionality that works
>> even in non-asserts builds (maybe?) so maybe if we just change the default
>> for assert builds so it's always opt-in via a flag, then it's consistent
>> between asserts and non-asserts builds.
>
> Do you happen to know what that option is? Thanks!
Generally called "discard value names" - clang has `-f{no-}discard-value-names`
- the various command line tools (opt, llc, etc) have some similar flags with
spelling more suitable to the various command line syntaxes, etc...
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
