aaron.ballman added a comment. In D147073#4261633 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147073#4261633>, @zequanwu wrote:
> In D147073#4258981 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147073#4258981>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> Perhaps a way to split the middle would be to assert that the source >> locations are valid in coverage mapping, but then do the right thing in >> non-asserts builds instead of crashing. This way, we don't lose the benefit >> of knowing the issues happen in development builds, but we don't punish >> users of coverage mapping with the released product. WDYT? > > Won't this still cause assertion failure on assert builds? Yes, it will, but that's the goal in this case. I think we want the loud failure to tell us when we've > I don't quite understand "do the right thing in non-asserts builds instead of > crashing". For example: // If either of these locations is invalid, something elsewhere in the compiler has broken... assert(StartLoc && StartLoc->isInvalid() && "Start location is not valid"); assert(EndLoc && EndLoc->isInvalid() && "End location is not valid"); // ... however, we can still recover without crashing. if (StartLoc && StartLoc->isInvalid()) StartLoc = std::nullopt; if (EndLoc && EndLoc->isInvalid()) EndLoc = std::nullopt; Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147073/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147073 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
