[llvm-dev] RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier

Eric Christopher via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Aug 31 18:09:05 PDT 2015

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:50 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:

> > On 2015-Aug-31, at 12:21, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yep. This is where I was going :)
> Glad I found consensus, but I want to double-check that this makes
> sense to add to the driver.  I didn't quite think through the
> implications myself.
> Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is
> going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts
> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are
> doing LTO.  Is this reasonable?
> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64
> is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable-verify`.  Make
> sense?

*sigh* Reasons to hate the driver interface again...

I guess this is ok. Could possibly add it to the existing terrible "enable
this pass" interface on liblto as well.

I don't suppose ld64 could move to a model like we're talking about with
lld that pcc is working on?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150901/4e518945/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list