On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:11 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> > I know there is debate about this one side and another but for lldb this > is a settled issue. Unless you really are in a state where the world is > about to come crashing down around you, you can't raise a fatal error in > lldb. And in this case, the world is only very minorly strange, so it is > certainly not appropriate. I don't agree that this is a settled issue in LLDB. For starters, clang already does this, and LLDB links against libclang. Second, a year or so ago, i recall Greg saying that LLDB now runs out of process in Xcode, which should make this a non issue. Finally, by allowing inconsistent state to propagate through the code you are only hurting yourself, as you're ultimately not preventing any crashes. It'll just crash later when you de reference a null pointer or read some corrupt memory. Furthermore, it actually increases the likelihood of introducing bugs, due to the added complexity and technical debt introduced by untested code paths >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
