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

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

> On 2015-Aug-31, at 18:09, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:50 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> *sigh* Reasons to hate the driver interface again...
> 
> I guess this is ok. Could possibly add it to the existing terrible "enable this pass" interface on liblto as well. 

The linker doesn't know whether clang was built with asserts, though.

We could just make it implicit: move the decision to libLTO itself.  Given that clang and libLTO.dylib are different executables anyway -- and you might be interposing an asserts libLTO.dylib to use with an installed clang -- maybe it's even better?

> I don't suppose ld64 could move to a model like we're talking about with lld that pcc is working on?

What specifically?