On Mar 2, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm concerned that this kind of development approach doesn't actually >> make code more robust if we're designing the program to continue down >> other untested code paths (OK - so it doesn't infloop here, it does >> something else unexpected later). Are clients of this API intending to >> account for invalid FileIDs being returned, for example. > > Having worked on a codebase that went down this path a long time ago I > must second this concern. Changes like this make bug easier to ignore, > and the result is just that, they are ignored. > > In other codebases what I have seen is a assert-like macro that causes > crashes on non debug builds too. That makes bugs easier to reproduce > and much harder to ignore. Could we do something like that in here? libclang from the beginning has chosen to avoid crashing the process, see llvm::CrashRecoveryContext. > > Cheers, > Rafael _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
