dblaikie added a comment. In D135551#3850266 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135551#3850266>, @inclyc wrote:
> This makes sense! However I think `assert(0)` should not be used in this > case, we could expose another `llvm_unreachable`-like api and probably > `llvm_report_error` shall be fine. Are there some changed assertions actually > "Aspirationally unreachable" in this patch? No, I really don't think we should go down that path. I believe these are not actually distinct cases - in either case, the program has UB if they violated the invariants/preconditions - whether or not they called through the C API. unreachable is no more a guarantee/proven thing than an assertion - both are written by humans and a claim "if this is reached-or-false, there is a bug in some code, somewhere". The statement is not stronger in the unreachable case and the style guide supports that perspective and the way we triage/treat bugs is pretty consistent with that - we get bugs all the time when an unreachable is reached and that doesn't seem to surprise most/anyone - we treat it the same as a bug when an assertion fires. The discourse discussion, I think, supports this ^ perspective. As there's still disagreement, should this escalate to the RFC process to change the style guide, Aaron? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135551/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135551 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
