jingham added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Expression/IRExecutionUnit.cpp:601
if (log) {
+ LLDB_LOGF(log,
----------------
labath wrote:
> 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.)
Yes, it's also not entirely obvious (YAY for macros!!!) that code in the
LLDB_LOG* arguments doesn't get evaluated if log == nullptr, but that also
reduces the need for standalone if (logs).
BTW, we were going to document somewhere that LLDB_LOG actually used
format_providers but I didn't see that anywhere. I submitted:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65293
to put this somewhere in the lldb sources. Not sure if this is the best place,
or if there is more that it would be useful to add.
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
