[LLVMdev] 2.4 Pre-release (v1) Available for Testing

Robert Zeh robert.a.zeh at gmail.com
Sun Oct 12 18:15:57 PDT 2008

You're right that LLVM may be left in an unusable state --- I've  
encountered that problem on my own.

However, even a simple exit function would be useful.  If, instead of  
calling abort, LLVM called a function pointer I provided life would be  
much easier.  Even if the function call simply threw up a crash screen  
life would be better than calling abort. Ideally I'd like to throw an  
exception, and terminate gracefully.


> Hi,
>> Which makes me curious, if I submitted a patch that got rid of llvms
>> use of abort()s all over the place, and replaces them with exceptions
>> (the program dies either way if it is unhandled, but with exceptions
>> you at least get a chance to handle it and recover),
> since LLVM may well be left in an inconsistent state internally if
> an exception is thrown, it wouldn't be safe to continue using it
> after catching an exception.
> Ciao,
> Duncan.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list