[llvm] r243487 - [tests] Use llvm-readobj instead of macho-dump.

[Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-commits]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 07:49:33AM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> > Sure. The last beast to tackle is llvm-objdump. I'm cool with doing
> > the conversion but I wanted to hear your opinion. I think that
> > llvm-readobj is more of a tool for the final user so it makes sense to
> > continue on error rather than calling exit(1). What's your opinion,
> > and, if you know, what's the GNU behavior in this case?
> 
> When creating invalid object files for tests I noticed that tools like
> readelf normally print an error/warning and then proceed to print
> garbage or crash.
> 
> IMHO users are better served by a good error message and a full stop,
> so IMHO exit(1) is better for llvm-objdump too.

I have a somewhat different position. It is highly annoying if you have
a slightly broken object file and you can't figure out what is broken,
because your tools keep crashing or outright rejecting it. Printing
garbage after an error message is OK to a degree, but please avoid
bailing out too early. Another item to consider is whether to bail out
of the current logical group. E.g. if you run into some inconsistency in
the program header, it might still be possible and reasonable to print
the symbol table.

Joerg