[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

[Lang Hames via llvm-dev]

Hi All,

My understanding of the earlier thread is that it ended with "We agree to
disagree for now, and (potentially) revisit this later".

I'm not interested in starting any new discussions at the moment, but I
want to make sure we avoid the echo chamber effect too, so: The position of
the mach-o tool developers is that crashing on malformed input should be
considered a bug, and to that end we're working to improve our error
detection and reporting.

- Lang.

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:49 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 March 2016 at 17:34, Tim Northover via llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >> My understanding is that clang and llvm themselves are designed this
>>> way
>>> >> (crash when the unexpected happens).
>>> >
>>> > I don't think so. I'd view any Clang crash as a bug (probably to be
>>> > prioritised below silent CodeGen and many others, but not "working as
>>> > designed").
>>> >
>>> >> For example the fact that clang forks itself to be able to report
>>> diagnostics
>>> >
>>> > That seems like just trying to make our own job easier to me. I think
>>> > the entire point of the fork is to get a backtrace we can fix, and
>>> > point out where the user should send it.
>>> >
>>> >> llvm is full of report_fatal_error() (or worse, assertions that can
>>> fire on unexpected user input).
>>> >
>>> > A bit of a grey area since LLVM isn't itself a user-facing tool, but I
>>> > think I'd still say that a report_fatal_error that's not actionable by
>>> > the user is actually an LLVM bug. And a segfault definitely so.
>>>
>>> It is completely trivial to crash llvm. A case I wrote today in
>>> another thread while waiting for tests to run:
>>>
>>> target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
>>> @".data" = global i32 42
>>>
>>> That will crash "llc -filetype=obj". The fact that it is considered a
>>> bug doesn't mean much if there is no coordinated effort to fix them.
>>>
>>
>> I think it does, actually - that patches will be accepted to fix pretty
>> much any crash in LLVM. (llc isn't a user facing tool, so that's a
>> praticularly low priority - but as a general library (I assume your example
>> also crashes Clang, which would be where this would surface in a more
>> important way) it's pretty well accepted that crashes are bugs, I think)
>>
>>
>>> Right now lld is already harder to crash than llvm. We are just being
>>> honest about the fact that it is possible to craft a .o file that will
>>> crash it.
>>>
>>
>> But the difference seems to be you know about these cases and don't
>> consider them to be bugs/anything to fix. In LLVM if they're known, they're
>> at least considered bugs and often/usually considered by someone to be
>> worth fixing at some point.
>>
>
> I think this is the same from the user's point of view. If LLVM is not
> crash-bug-free in the version you are using, you need some precaution such
> as forking in order to protect your program from crashing if you need 100%
> guarantee.
>
>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rafael
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160321/73c00431/attachment.html>