[LLVMdev] [PATCH] SelectionDAG Debugging

[Dan Gohman]

On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:51 AM, David Greene wrote:

> On Friday 15 January 2010 13:41, Dan Gohman wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:31 AM, David Greene wrote:
>>> On Friday 15 January 2010 13:16, Dan Gohman wrote:
>>>> Is it ever desirable to pass false to the "limit" argument?
>>> 
>>> Not in the usual course of things but I figured someday someone
>>> might want to dig deeper.  "limit" is just a heuristic and it
>>> could be wrong.  Maybe the SelectionDAG is really just huge.
>> 
>> "limit" is just the flag that controls whether or not a message
>> is printed. It seems the message would always be either useful
>> or harmless.
> 
> Ah, yes, you're correct.  I goofed there.  The message should be
> printed and "limit" should control whether we actually check
> the depth.
> 
> Sound good? reimplement


Unlimited-recursion dumping is what the existing dump routines
already do, so it's a little odd to have a flag to allow these
new dump routines to do the same thing. I guess you could
refactor the old ones to call the new ones and eliminate some
redundant code, if you wanted.

Dan