On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I'm trying to make IL verifying more streamlined - it's often
> that passes have some random (or no) verification in their TODO
> which makes pinning down issues to specific passes hard.
>
> Thus I propose to unify the various TODO_verify_
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 01:37:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to make IL verifying more streamlined - it's often
> > that passes have some random (or no) verification in their TODO
> > which makes pinning down issues to spe
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 01:37:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I'm trying to make IL verifying more streamlined - it's often
> that passes have some random (or no) verification in their TODO
> which makes pinning down issues to specific passes hard.
>
> Thus I propose to unify the vario
Hi,
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> Do people think that the fine-grained verification control
> is actually useful or do you agree with me that it leads to
> sloppiness?
I agree with you ...
> --- 1955,1982
> return;
>
> #if defined ENABLE_CHECKING
> ! if (flags
On 02/21/13 05:37, Richard Biener wrote:
I'm trying to make IL verifying more streamlined - it's often
that passes have some random (or no) verification in their TODO
which makes pinning down issues to specific passes hard.
Thus I propose to unify the various TODO_verify_* flags into
a single o
I'm trying to make IL verifying more streamlined - it's often
that passes have some random (or no) verification in their TODO
which makes pinning down issues to specific passes hard.
Thus I propose to unify the various TODO_verify_* flags into
a single one, TODO_verify_il, and based on what IL pr
