[LLVMdev] BuildMode

[David Greene]

On Tuesday 26 June 2007 14:05, Reid Spencer wrote:

> I think you mis-interpreted something. 

That's not surprising.  :)

> If you build with -disable-assertions you are telling whatever build
> mode (Debug or Release) to not include assertions. Consequently you get
> either Release-Asserts (Release minus asserts) or Debug-Asserts (Debug
> minus Asserts).

I was wondering if that's what it meant.

> I would appreciate it if you would not commit the changes you made or
> you'll confuse a lot of us. Its already confusing enough.

Nope, I won't.  That's why I asked.  I'll change it back in my copy.


> Yeah, this appears to be bug in this rule. It shouldn't be using
> $(AssertMode) there, just $(BuildMode). 

All right.  I'll clean that up.

> Furthermore, the ifeq directive 
> needs to find "Debug" anywhere in $(BuildMode) not just if its equal to
> "Build". That is, you want the warnings to occur when BuildMOde is
> "Debug" or "Debug-Asserts" or "Debug+ExpensiveChecks" or any other
> variant that includes "Debug".

Yep, I wondered about that too.  I'll fix it.

> As a side note, you are ADDING something to the build rather than
> subtracting so please use + instead of - in your BuildMode for
> --enable-expensive-checks. That is, when you add
> --enable-expensive-checks, the BuildMode should be "Debug
> +ExpensiveChecks" not "Debug-ExpensiveChecks".

Ok.  Is "ExpensiveChecks" a reasonable keyword for this?  I wanted something
that could encompass other things people might want without creating 
thousands of build combinations and 
Debug+CxxLibChecks+BoundsChecking+ElectricFence+Even+More+
  Things+That+Would+Create+Ridiculously+Long+Build+Names

I wanted to keep things at least mostly sane.

                                             -Dave