[PATCH] D29061: [PM] Introduce a PoisoningVH as a (more expensive) alternative to AssertingVH that delays any reported error until the handle is *used*.

[Chandler Carruth via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

chandlerc marked an inline comment as done.
chandlerc added inline comments.


================
Comment at: include/llvm/IR/ValueHandle.h:410
+
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+  /// A flag tracking whether this value has been poisoned.
----------------
sanjoy wrote:
> I know you'll hate me for this, but this needs to be conditional on `LLVM_ENABLE_ABI_BREAKING_CHECKS` also.
No more or less than AssertingVH?

I assumed that the design idea of AssertingVH was that *users* must leverage LLVM_ENABLE_ABI_BREAKING_CHECKS if they expose the AssertingVH. Maybe that's wrong or maybe that's a bad model, but I'd rather the two handles follow the same model (and be fixed or changed at the same time).

Similarly, if today's users of AssertingVH are failing to use this macro, they were before my changes, and I'd rather not have to boil that ocean.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D29061