[llvm-dev] Textual IR value names (original) (raw)

Craig Topper via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 9 14:22:52 PST 2019

And the clang behavior can be controlled with -fdiscard-value-names/-fno-discard-value-names

~Craig

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 2:16 PM Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 2:12 PM David Greene via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I like my LLVM IR text to have nice value names, e.g. > > %add = add ... > %mul = mul ... > > And this all works well if the build has asserts enabled. If the build > does not have asserts enabled, it's not so nice: > > %1 = add ... > %2 = mul ... > > I understand the use for obfuscating names, but the choice to make this > dependent on whether or not asserts are enabled seems odd to me. At the > very least it's surprising. It took some time for me to figure out why > some of our builds behaved differently than others. > > Is this an intentional design choice? If so, what's the rationale? If > not, would it make sense to add a CMake option to specify whether > textual IR preserves names or not rather than overloading > ENABLEASSERTIONS? >

You can use opt -instnamer. -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" -- Henri Poincare

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190109/d24931f0/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list