Much to my surprise, '-disable-llvm-optzns' which I thought was the
magical flag I wanted to get at the raw LLVM IR coming out of Clang
deosn't do that. It still runs some passes over the IR. I don't want
that, I really want the *raw* IR coming out of Clang and I strongly
suspect everyone else using it is in the same camp.
There is actually a flag that does what I want that I didn't know about
called '-disable-llvm-passes'. I suspect many others don't know about it
either. It both does what I want and is much simpler.
This removes the confusing version and makes that spelling of the flag
an alias for '-disable-llvm-passes'. I've also moved everything in Clang
to use the 'passes' spelling as it seems both more accurate (*all* LLVM
passes are disabled, not just optimizations) and much easier to remember
and spell correctly.
This is part of simplifying how Clang drives LLVM to make it cleaner to
wire up to the new pass manager.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28047
llvm-svn: 290392
The backend won't run LowerExpect on -O0. In a debug LTO build, this results in llvm.expect intrinsics being in the LTO IR which doesn't know how to optimize them.
Thanks to Chandler for the suggestion and review.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7183
llvm-svn: 227135
if the definition has a non-variadic prototype with compatible
parameters. Therefore, the default rule for such calls must be to
use a non-variadic convention. Achieve this by casting the callee to
the function type with which it is required to be compatible, unless
the target specifically opts out and insists that unprototyped calls
should use the variadic rules. The only case of that I'm aware of is
the x86-64 convention, which passes arguments the same way in both
cases but also sets a small amount of extra information; here we seek
to maintain compatibility with GCC, which does set this when calling
an unprototyped function.
Addresses PR10810 and PR10713.
llvm-svn: 140241
Chandler Carruth