Agreed, get ASAN working and we will find this issue and any remaining issues.
> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Greg Clayton via lldb-commits
> <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> My takeaway is a bug was added that wasn't previously a bug. If code was
>> designed to carefully use StringRef, then yes, it can be made safe. But we
>> added StringRef support in all of LLDB and we didn't catch all of the
>> possible misuses. My main questions is: is there anything we can do to catch
>> these things now that we have them.
>>
>
> FWIW, I'd say this is not necessarily a bad thing (the bug).
> You can now try to write a test that catches this behaviour and/or run
> an ASAN bot if there's a test already in case somebody breaks this
> code.
>
> Also, just to mention, this happen{s, ed} in LLVM many times, people
> just revert the revision or fix immediately.
> That's why we have bot and tests for. We shouldn't be really afraid of
> using a variant of a standardized (!) function because it can break.
> If people are judicious, then the problem will be fixed. If they're
> not, the revision will be reverted.
> I think the main takeaway from this test is lack of testing/infra, but
> I'm not necessarily sure it's fair to pick on this commit because it
> "added a bug".
> We all know it could've happened regardless.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Davide
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
