[PATCH] D16668: ELF: Remove fatal() and add the second parameter to the linker's entry point.
Sean Silva via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Feb 1 11:18:32 PST 2016
silvas added a subscriber: silvas.
silvas added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16668#340546, @rafael wrote:
> I don't think so.
> The problem is that we were not at 100% coverage with fatal. There are many cases where we would just follow a broken offset and crash. If we can produce a segmentation fault, we can call fatal.
> If we cannot produce a segmentation fault, we will need another way of fixing this.
I think this does cover the case of programmatic invocation of LLD (i.e., with known-good object files, which seems like the primary use case for programmatic invocation), so it does still seem worth it.
Bulletproofing against all possible defective object files (i.e. guaranteeing no segfaults) is a huge amount of work I suspect (and probably not worth it?), but this change does seem to cover a real (and requested by many people in the community) use case.
More information about the llvm-commits