[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> It seems that it is repeating the same discussion again, unfortunately.
>

For myself, I find this thread to contain a new discussion (is crashing by
design) from the previous (is exit(1)/non-API-usable-behavior for
obscure/erroneous inputs by design) discussion. Perhaps I misunderstood or
didn't catch the part where crashing/assert/UB was included in the previous
discussion.


> I believe that everybody can at least accept either is reasonable choice.
>

I'm less inclined to accept that UB/crash/assert failure is a reasonable
choice for a release product (for a dev tool like bugpoint, llc, etc, I
sort of accept it) even for obscure inputs.


> 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
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160321/4f442ca8/attachment.html>