If you had just logged it, the bug would still not be fixed because nobody would know about it. I also can't believe we have to keep saying this :-/
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:50 AM Greg Clayton <clayb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> 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
