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

[Teresa Johnson via llvm-commits]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Rafael Espíndola
<rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 December 2015 at 09:17, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>> Also got bit by this once, so really like the idea.
>>
>> Some clear comments are needed to explain what "unchecked" means and
>> when you would want to use it, since it isn't obvious from the name. I
>> can't think of any alternate name that is particularly meaningful and
>> reasonably concise. Maybe "materialized_uses", etc to indicate it is
>> only looking for uses that have been materialized thus far?
>
> I like the name, thanks.
>
> BTW, do you have any thoughts on the "Drop support for
> dematerializing"? It should remove some of the more odd uses of the
> unchecked versions, so I would like to commit that first if possible.

It seems fine to me - any functions ThinLTO materializes when
importing should get moved over to the dest module.

Thanks,
Teresa

>
> Thanks,
> Rafael



-- 
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413