labath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Expression/IRExecutionUnit.cpp:601
if (log) {
+ LLDB_LOGF(log,
----------------
jingham wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > looks like there are some `if(log)`s still remaining. Maybe the `{}` around
> > the printf confused your vim macro?
> There will always be some "if (log)" statements. Whenever consing up the log
> message involves work, you should always say:
>
> if (log) {
> /// Do expensive work
> LLDB_LOG...
> }
>
> Not saying that all the remaining "if (logs)" are for that reason, but then
> intent is NOT to remove all such statements as they serve a useful purpose.
I'm fine with `if(log)`s staying if they serve a purpose (or even if they're
hard to remove in this patch). However, I would expect that with LLDB_LOG, they
become much less frequently needed, because the formatter is much more powerful
(e.g., there is no need to write a for loop just to print an array, etc.)
Repository:
rL LLVM
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65128/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65128
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
