Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > In the autotools discussion I've come to realize that we also need to talk > about > the -DDEBUG guard. It seems that there are two different uses, and thus two > different asks about it: > > - Nine (and RadeonSI?) use -DDEBUG to hide generic debugging > - NIR and Intel (at least) use -DDEBUG to hide really expensive checks that > are > useful, but necessarily tank performance. > > The first group would like -DDEBUG in debugoptimized builds, the second > obviously doesn't. > > Is the right solution to move the first group being !NDEBUG, or would it be > better to split DEBUG into two different defines such as DEBUG_MESSAGES and > EXPENSIVE_VALIDATION (paint the bikeshed whatever color you like), with the > first for both debug and debugoptimized and the second only in debug builds?
I would like to see NIR validation in debugoptimized builds (which is the build I use on a regular basis: "please catch all bugs you can at runtime with asserts, but don't waste CPU time by compiling with -O0");
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
