[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev]

It seems that it is repeating the same discussion again, unfortunately. I
believe that everybody can at least accept either is reasonable choice.
Also, I'd like to mention that LLD developers who are actually hacking the
thing everyday are thinking that that is a reasonable choice as far as I
can tell. So why don't we go with the decision I wrote in the doc?

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:35 PM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>
wrote:

> I was writing a response but David and Tim got there first more
> eloquently. +1 to both of them.
>
> I also find your tone worryingly totalitarian, Rafael.
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 at 21:23, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21 March 2016 at 17:20, James Molloy via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Rafael,
>> >
>> > How can a high quality product crash by design? I understand the lack of
>> > structured error handling, and I understand asserting (which in release
>> mode
>> > would be silent) on internal errors. But on an input? How can an
>> application
>> > be taken seriously when crashes are design features?
>> >
>> > And I certainly didn't see consensus or in fact the suggestion of this
>> in
>> > the other thread, unless I glazed over an important part.
>> >
>>
>> It can crash because .o files are not user input. They are generated.
>> To get one you need a broken assembler or a broken hardware.
>>
>> Sorry if lld is not the linker you want, but that is the one we are
>> writing.
>>
>> As for how it will be taken seriously, well, we seem to be on good
>> track to be able to link freebsd and to do so faster than gold.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rafael
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160321/8cffdd47/attachment.html>