On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:52 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Re-fix r136172 so it isn't an error; apparently, some people are fond of >>>> their undefined behavior. >>> >>> Would it be practical to emit something like an llvm_unreachable, call >>> to terminate, or other "bad stuff has happened here" kind of code >>> instead? >> >> Apparently real-world code uses this construct. See also r136180. > > Right - the point made in r136180 is that it's UB to run the code, but > not erroneous to have the code, which sounds like a perfect case for > llvm_unreachable, if it's practical to emit it in this case. > > Unless you're saying real-world code is depending on the specific > current behavior of LLVM when that code is executed (ie: they're > actually invoking UB & depending on it doing something in particular)
This. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
