[PATCH] Debug Info Verifier pass

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith]

Thanks for the reviews, Eric and Manman.  I'll send new patches probably
on Monday (after I get a chance to see what happens with make check-all),
but in the meantime:

On 2014 Apr 11, at 15:17, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) The Broken variable seems weird.
> 
> An idea for a refactor:
> 
> +  // CheckFailed - A check failed, so print out the condition and the message
> +  // that failed.  This provides a nice place to put a breakpoint if you want
> +  // to see why something is not correct.
> +  void CheckFailed(const Twine &Message, const Value *V1 = 0,
> +                   const Value *V2 = 0, const Value *V3 = 0,
> +                   const Value *V4 = 0) {
> +    OS << Message.str() << "\n";
> +    WriteValue(V1);
> +    WriteValue(V2);
> +    WriteValue(V3);
> +    WriteValue(V4);
> +    Broken = true;
> +  }
> +
> 
> Maybe just use a variadic template, iterate over the arguments, and
> have "WriteValue" just take either a type or a value? I think that
> might work?

Frankly, I'd like to avoid a refactor... I just moved this code
(verbatim) out of Verifier so I could use the same macros in
DebugInfoVerifier.  Can we punt that until later?

> Can we use those yet?

Looks like not :(.

http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#supported-c-11-language-and-library-features

> 2)
> 
> void LLVMAddVerifierPass(LLVMPassManagerRef PM) {
>   unwrap(PM)->add(createVerifierPass());
> +  // FIXME: should this also add createDebugInfoVerifierPass()?
> }
> 
> ... I'm not even sure why this is here? (Not your code, that comment
> is fine, the original though...)

This seems to be for the OCaml bindings:

$ tail -n +167 bindings/ocaml/transforms/scalar/scalar_opts_ocaml.c | head -n 5
/* [<Llvm.PassManager.any] Llvm.PassManager.t -> unit */
CAMLprim value llvm_add_verifier(LLVMPassManagerRef PM) {
  LLVMAddVerifierPass(PM);
  return Val_unit;
}

Is the FIXME is sufficient, or should I dig deeper?