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 session. -- 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 lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
