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

OvermindDL1 overminddl1 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 12 19:30:06 PDT 2008

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Robert Zeh <robert.a.zeh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Something I also mentioned much earlier on the mailing list is it
could just be a define in some config.h file or so about whether to
abort(), call some user error handler, or throw exception, (or some
other method of throwing up,) as that would satisfy all, could just
default to abort() or what-not to match the general (llvm-gcc?) case.

And why would it not be possible to just delete the module (or have it
self delete in the exception handler) so you can gracefully make
another and continue parsing another module?

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list