Skip to content

Add an option -Xllvm -sil-print-on-error. #7189

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 1, 2017
Merged

Add an option -Xllvm -sil-print-on-error. #7189

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 1, 2017

Conversation

atrick
Copy link
Contributor

@atrick atrick commented Feb 1, 2017

Print the SIL function body on an assert. Recovering the SIL code is the
critical path for pretty much any SIL development. The only alternative is
rebuilding the library with string matching or building a debug compiler and
hoping lldb works. The standard library takes a very long time to build with a
debug compiler.

Print the SIL function body on an assert. Recovering the SIL code is the
critical path for pretty much any SIL development. The only alternative is
rebuilding the library with string matching or building a debug compiler and
hoping lldb works. The standard library takes a very long time to build with a
debug compiler.
@atrick
Copy link
Contributor Author

atrick commented Feb 1, 2017

@swift-ci test and merge.

@gottesmm
Copy link
Contributor

gottesmm commented Feb 1, 2017

@atrick Maybe add the equivalent one for the module as well? I think we may actually have a pretty stack trace for that already.

@swift-ci swift-ci merged commit 83fcb32 into swiftlang:master Feb 1, 2017
@atrick
Copy link
Contributor Author

atrick commented Feb 1, 2017

@gottesmm I wasn't sure about the usability. We would probably want the module dump to a specified file at least. I hope we continue to make progress on moving away from module passes to function passes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants