[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] Change lldb_assert() to use llvm::sys::PrintBacktrace

Zachary Turner zturner at google.com
Wed Mar 4 17:18:57 PST 2015

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree.  Whether it prints to a Stream or directly to
stderr is kind of an implementation detail.  Not very important since it
just ends up to stdout or stderr anwyay and we don't do anything else with
the backtrace except print it and throw it away.

llvm already has functionality built in to serve exactly this purpose.  Why
shouldn't we use it?  Not only are we sure that it's implemented on all
platforms that LLVM supports, but the format is consistent on all of these
platforms, and anyway why reinvent the wheel?

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:15 PM Enrico Granata <granata.enrico at gmail.com>

> ================
> Comment at: source/Utility/LLDBAssert.cpp:14
> @@ -13,1 +13,3 @@
> +
> +#include "llvm/Support/Signals.h"
> ----------------
> I would not do this.
> Printing to a Stream is the LLDB way to do this, no reason for switching
> to this LLVM API
> ================
> Comment at: source/Utility/LLDBAssert.cpp:36
> @@ -37,1 +35,3 @@
> +        llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(stderr);
> +        fprintf(stderr, "please file a bug report against lldb reporting
> this failure log, and as many details as possible\n");
>      }
> ----------------
> Printing to stderr is probably a good idea
> But, again, I prefer to stick to the LLDB host layer
> It's probably fine to reimplement Host::Backtrace() in terms of LLVM APIs
> if it can be done generally and with decent performance, but I don't see
> much in terms of added value in this change
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D8069
>   http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20150305/9ae79853/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list