Success? No. Log something. Return an error. Anything but crashing. Crashing is not acceptable. I can't believe we have to keep saying this.
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:22 PM Jason Molenda via lldb-commits > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > fwiw the reason the JIT came up is because we had an instance where the older > MCJIT wasn't handling a relocation in thumb code about six weeks ago and we > only caught the crash a couple days before we released a beta of it. It > definitely can happen with MCJIT. I think with ORC JIT this is a not going > to be a problem -- but it's a good example of a class of problem where the > subsystem (jit) considers the failure catastrophic, whereas the user will > find another way to do their work. When it takes the developer an hour to > get to the point of failure, they try to print a variable, lldb ingests a ton > of debug info and then we crash because some little detail was not valid, or > they try to run an expression and the debugger crashes with an unsupported > relocation, I can't overstate what an enormous failure of the debugger that > is. > > I disagree. It sounds like a success. As a result of it crashing six weeks > ago, you learned the bug exists, and now Lang has fixed it. > _______________________________________________ > lldb-commits mailing list > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
