[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart

[Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:43:16 -0500
Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I agree that if an API user violates the API of a library, it is
> appropriate for the library to abort with a fatal error.

<unlurking>

Is it? If you pass an invalid fd to the libc, it replies with a EBADF,
it doesn't crash hard. Most mature libraries have guards against invalid
or inconsistent parameter values, and return error codes to the caller.

As someone who maintains and uses an LLVM binding to Python (llvmlite),
it's one of the annoyances we have faced: if someone makes a mistake
when calling one of the exposed APIs, that API may crash the process
(while, as Python programmers, they would rather get an exception,
which at least makes it easier to debug and diagnose the issue).
Getting a crude assert-induced crash on a CI machine or a user's
machine is no fun.

Of course, a C or C++ library cannot guard against everything,
especially not against invalid pointers or corrupted memory.  But large
classes of user errors may be better served by actually returning an
error code rather than failing on an assert.

</unlurking>

Regards

Antoine.