[llvm] r231577 - Make the assertion macros in Verifier and Linter truly variadic.

[Benjamin Kramer]

> On 14.03.2015, at 18:04, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 2015 Mar 14, at 03:34, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 14.03.2015, at 04:14, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 2015 Mar 7, at 13:15, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Author: d0k
>>>> Date: Sat Mar  7 15:15:40 2015
>>>> New Revision: 231577
>>>> 
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=231577&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Make the assertion macros in Verifier and Linter truly variadic.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nice cleanup!
>>> 
>>>> NFC.
>>> 
>>> Actually... (see below)
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Modified:
>>>> llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/Lint.cpp
>>>> llvm/trunk/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp
>>>> 
>>>> Modified: llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/Lint.cpp
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/Lint.cpp?rev=231577&r1=231576&r2=231577&view=diff
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/Lint.cpp (original)
>>>> +++ llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/Lint.cpp Sat Mar  7 15:15:40 2015
>>>> @@ -129,27 +129,26 @@ namespace {
>>>>  }
>>>>  void print(raw_ostream &O, const Module *M) const override {}
>>>> 
>>>> -    void WriteValue(const Value *V) {
>>>> -      if (!V) return;
>>>> -      if (isa<Instruction>(V)) {
>>>> -        MessagesStr << *V << '\n';
>>>> -      } else {
>>>> -        V->printAsOperand(MessagesStr, true, Mod);
>>>> -        MessagesStr << '\n';
>>>> +    void WriteValues(ArrayRef<const Value *> Vs) {
>>>> +      for (const Value *V : Vs) {
>>>> +        if (!V)
>>>> +          continue;
>>>> +        if (isa<Instruction>(V)) {
>>>> +          MessagesStr << *V << '\n';
>>>> +        } else {
>>>> +          V->printAsOperand(MessagesStr, true, Mod);
>>>> +          MessagesStr << '\n';
>>>> +        }
>>>>    }
>>>>  }
>>>> 
>>>>  // 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.
>>> 
>>> This is no longer true.  I was playing with a similar patch myself
>>> while I was on holiday -- strange timing -- and I noticed that
>>> `b CheckFailed` no longer works (at least, not in `lldb`).  The
>>> problem is that you need to specify `CheckFailed<...>` as the
>>> breakpoint target.
>>> 
>>> My workaround was to add a `CheckFailedMsg()` function:
>>> 
>>>  void CheckFailedMsg(const Twine &Message) {
>>>    MessagesStr << Message.str() << "\n";
>>>  }
>>> 
>>> and have `CheckFailed()` call it.  Then `CheckFailedMsg()` serves
>>> as a nice target for a breakpoint.
>>> 
>>> Any other ideas?
>> 
>> That would be one possibility.
> 
> I committed a variation on this in r232268 that adds an overload
> for `CheckFailed`.  Tested it with both `-verify` and `-lint`.

Thanks!

- Ben

> 
>> My usual hackaround for issues like this is to place a breakpoint on the first line in the templated function instead of using the name. LLDB also supports regex breakpoints, but I never tried that.
> 
> IMO we shouldn't need hacks (or advanced debugger features) for
> this.