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
