[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r231310 - Introduce lldbassert(x)

[Zachary Turner]

As mentioned in the other thread, I think the StreamString thing is kind of
irrelevant.  The goal here is to get the backtrace to the screen.  I would
argue the reverse, that we should only be reinventing facilities in LLDB
when there's a good reason to do so.  In this case, I don't think being
able to use a StreamString is a compelling enough reason.  On the other
hand, having a consistent backtrace format which supports all platforms is
definitely a compelling reason to use the LLVM facility.  So I do think it
makes sense here.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:12 PM Enrico Granata <egranata at apple.com> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, I have just uploaded http://reviews.llvm.org/D8068 to LLVM which
> implements backtracing of self on Windows (previously only backtracing of
> other threads was supported).  So once that goes through, if we switch this
> code to using llvm::sys::PrintBacktrace(),
>
>
> I don’t think we should make this change.
> Host::Backtrace prints to an lldb_private::Stream which is our preferred
> API for accumulating output - the LLVM version of this seems to print to a
> FILE* which is much less general
>
> I understand using LLVM facilities where it makes sense, but we should not
> be doing so blindly when the net effect is a loss of functionality for us
>
> If you can implement Host::Backtrace in general on all platforms via LLVM,
> feel free to do so - but we should still go through lldb's Host::Backtrace
> for this, and Host::Backtrace should still use our Stream*s*
>
> we should have a standard backtrace format across all platforms that LLVM
> supports.
>
> I like this feature now that I understand the use case, thanks for
> introducing it.
>
>
> We had a power outage here in Cupertino, which delayed my reply
> Glad to hear we all agree on this :-)
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:31 PM Siva Chandra <sivachandra at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Enrico Granata <egranata at apple.com>
>> wrote:
>> > +#ifdef LLDB_CONFIGURATION_DEBUG
>> > +#define lldbassert(x) assert(x)
>> > +#else
>> > +#define lldbassert(x) lldb_private::lldb_assert(x, #x, __FUNCTION__,
>> __FILE__, __LINE__)
>> > +#endif
>>
>> Why should we have this ifdef? As in, why shouldn't we use lldb_assert
>> unconditionally, always (giving us the benefit of backtraces always)?
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-commits mailing list
>> lldb-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
>>
>  Thanks,
> *- Enrico*
> 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20150305/9162c9ad/attachment.html>