================
@@ -131,11 +138,22 @@ Expected<FileCache> llvm::localCache(const Twine
&CacheNameRef,
});
if (E)
- report_fatal_error(Twine("Failed to rename temporary file ") +
- TempFile.TmpName + " to " + ObjectPathName + ": "
+
- toString(std::move(E)) + "\n");
+ return E;
AddBuffer(Task, ModuleName, std::move(*MBOrErr));
+ return Error::success();
+ }
+
+ ~CacheStream() {
+ // In Debug builds, try to track down places where commit() was not
+ // called before destruction.
+ assert(Committed);
----------------
anjenner wrote:
The advantage of explicit commit is that it allows proper error handling rather
than aborting the entire process if the cache write fails - usually an
undesirable behavior. My aim here was to quietly fall back to the previous
behavior in if commit() was not called in release mode but help developers
track down such places in debug mode (which worked perfectly - I found just
such a case that way). I was thinking of leaving it there to help people who
have code that uses localCache in branches that have not yet landed in mainline
LLVM. However, I agree that it would be annoying to switch from release to
debug to track down an unrelated problem and have to fix a missing commit() at
that point. I think on balance explicitly failing here is the better plan -
I'll modify my patch to do this but I could probably be talked into allowing
the commit() to be optional if anyone has strong feelings about this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115331
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
