[LLVMdev] Integer questions

OvermindDL1 overminddl1 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 8 19:18:55 PDT 2008

Do note though, that would cause an interface breaking change (just in
the function signatures, but still).  An alternate would be to just
pass in a struct that the user can subclass to perform their own error
reporting, call a certain function in it or so before it finally bails
out, it puts a level of indirection so if someone wants to recover
they will have to use their own variables stored somewhere, so it is
much more ugly and would not work well with C style bindings, whereas
the interface breaking change would.  Or are there any other styles
that are preferred?

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:08 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Patches to do the kind of checking you're asking about would be
>> welcome :-). I don't think it makes sense to extend the
>> Verifier itself here; it's supposed to accept any valid LLVM IR.
>> I think a separate CodeGenVerifier might be a good approach
>> though, or possibly extending codegen itself with the ability to
>> interrupt itself and yield some kind of error status.
> And I presume you all are allergic to exceptions, since I have seen
> none so far (probably due to help the C bindings and such), return
> error codes all over the place then?  If I do any extension on this
> (short on time, so good chance I cannot, but if I do) the usual
> non-exception style I use is the return value is a status code, the
> last argument passed in is an optional std::string* (the return code
> gives the basic error reason, the string gives details), anything that
> actually needs to be returned are the first arguments as
> references/pointers, would that work?

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list