[patch][rfc] Asserting that we have all use/users in the getters

[Vedant Kumar via llvm-commits]

Brain-o, I meant to say:

Is it OK to get rid of the "*_unchecked" methods and use the assertion-enabled methods for everything?

vedant

> On Dec 15, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Would it be intolerably slow to add the asserts into the non-`*_unchecked` methods?
> 
> I suspect that users of the `_unchecked` methods would break more often than their guarded cousins.
> 
> vedant
> 
>> On Dec 15, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> An error that is pretty easy to make is to use the lazy bitcode reader
>> and then do something like
>> 
>> if (V.use_empty())
>> 
>> The problem is that uses in unmaterialized functions are not accounted for.
>> 
>> The attached patch adds asserts that all uses are known. I think it
>> can be reduced a bit by dropping support for dematerializing, which
>> seems dead. I will send a patch for that, but I just wanted to ask if
>> this looks like a good idea.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Rafael
>> <t.diff>_______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>