[PATCH] D18041: [ELF] use fatal() instead of llvm_unreachable when performing relaxations.

[Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits]

On Mar 10, 2016 2:40 PM, "George Rimar" <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote:
>
> grimar added a comment.
>
> What is expected behavior if user gets llvm_unreachable in release for
lld ?

Undefined

> If compiler will cut off the llvm_unreachable code, user probably will
see nothing except crash.
> We are using llvm_unreachable everywhere and just assuming it never gonna
happen ?
>
> (I am sorry if asking something obvious or already being answered, but
that just very wierd for me).
> fatal() at least will error out something. Why don't we use it for bugs
and not only for errors ?
> Doesn't error message is aways more userfriendly than crash ?
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D18041
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160310/b9fd6517/attachment.html>