[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev]

> On Mar 21, 2016, at 2:20 PM, James Molloy via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Rafael,
> 
> How can a high quality product crash by design? I understand the lack of structured error handling, and I understand asserting (which in release mode would be silent) on internal errors. But on an input? How can an application be taken seriously when crashes are design features?
> 
> And I certainly didn't see consensus or in fact the suggestion of this in the other thread, unless I glazed over an important part. 

My understanding is that clang and llvm themselves are designed this way (crash when the unexpected happens). For example the fact that clang forks itself to be able to report diagnostics is a good indication that this is assumed, and llvm is full of report_fatal_error() (or worse, assertions that can fire on unexpected user input).
I complained on the list at some point that "by design" LLVM as a library requires you to fork and run in a separate process, but the tradeoff in the ease of implementation seems to be the current consensus.

-- 
Mehdi





> 
> James
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 at 21:16, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com <mailto:ruiu at google.com>> wrote:
> Of course I'm not happy. And I hope that you understood that that is unusual. Having said that, I'd say it's however reasonable.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160321/8fbdd24b/attachment.html>