From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Zachary
Turner via lldb-dev
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:47 PM
> This kind of philisophical debate is probably worthy of a separate thread :)
> That being said, I think asserts are typically used in places where the
> assert firing means "You're going to crash *anyway*"
This is emphatically NOT the case.
One of the first tasks I was given when I started at Qualcomm was to fix the
disassembler for Hexagon. It was a mess - it would assert if the disassembly
tables couldn't identify an opcode. Maybe that's fine for an assembler, assert
if you can't generate an opcode, but an unidentified opcode should print a
warning and move on. It's not a fatal error to disassemble data!
There are other instances of this in llvm. I agree with Greg - libraries
shouldn't assert. Send an error back to the caller, and let the caller handle
it. A typo in my expression that lldb sends to clang shouldn't crash my debug
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project
lldb-dev mailing list