[llvm] r193937 - When LLVM is embedded in a larger application, it's not OK for LLVM to intercept crashes. LLVM already has

[Alp Toker]

On 03/11/2013 04:40, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> I certainly could.  I'm just playing out the trade-offs and I don't
> see the upside of reverting.  I think we agree that we will replace
> this API with something more thought-out.  So, we agree that this new
> function of mine will have a short shelf-life and should not make it
> into a release.  We can either leave my horrible function in svn for
> the next few days, or we can revert it.  Leaving it in has the
> downside that maybe others will take a liking to it.  Reverting it
> means more hassle for C API clients, like me.  Seems like leaving it
> in is the lesser evil?

Filip, as long as you're committed to following this up -- amending the
comment now and removing the function in the next few days, this is OK
with me as long as others don't object.

FWIW I'll be around to help test as soon as you have an Enable() patch.

Most of all, please make sure the function doesn't inadvertently end up
in 3.4 (!) or it'll be the wrong outcome to a long-standing bug.

Alp.

-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts