[PATCH] D26648: Clarify semantic of reserved registers.

[Matthias Braun via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

MatzeB added inline comments.


================
Comment at: include/llvm/Target/TargetRegisterInfo.h:950
+  /// of the set as well.
+  void assertAllSuperRegsMarked(const BitVector &RegisterSet,
+      ArrayRef<MCPhysReg> Exceptions = ArrayRef<MCPhysReg>()) const;
----------------
qcolombet wrote:
> I'd change the API a bit:
> - Rename in checkAllSuperRegsMarked
> - Return bool
> - Have the users assert on that bool.
> 
> The rationale is that in release build `assert(checkAllSuperRegsMarked)` can be optimized out, but `assertAllSuperRegsMarked` would still cause a call to an empty function.
Actually my first version returned a bool and had the `assert()` on the caller. I changed my mind because I wanted the display a message listing the register causing the problem and writing to stderr in a check function felt wrong. Would you think writing to stderr is fine anyway? Or should I just get rid of the message and have people figure out the problematic register in a debugger?


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D26648