> On Sep 12, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > 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 :-/
By log, I mean Host::SystemLog(...) which would come out in the command line. Not "log enable ...". So users would see the issue and report the bug. Crashing doesn't mean people always report the bug. Knowing that we have an unsupported relocation doesn't help us without knowing what the expression is. So while we end up seeing the crash, we often don't have enough info to do anything about it. So I don't see that as better. > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:50 AM Greg Clayton <clayb...@gmail.com > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits >> <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
