[llvm-dev] RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev]

> On 2015-Aug-31, at 12:21, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep. This is where I was going :)

Glad I found consensus, but I want to double-check that this makes
sense to add to the driver.  I didn't quite think through the
implications myself.

Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is
going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts
driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are
doing LTO.  Is this reasonable?

Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64
is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable-verify`.  Make
sense?