zturner added inline comments.
================ Comment at: source/Core/ModuleList.cpp:94 - llvm::SmallString<128> path; - clang::driver::Driver::getDefaultModuleCachePath(path); - SetClangModulesCachePath(path); + assert(!g_default_clang_modules_cache_path.empty()); + SetClangModulesCachePath(g_default_clang_modules_cache_path); ---------------- aprantl wrote: > zturner wrote: > > aprantl wrote: > > > zturner wrote: > > > > I don't think this should be an assert. After all, if the whole point > > > > is to make LLDB usable in situations where clang is not present, then > > > > someone using it in such an environment would probably never call the > > > > static function to begin with. So I think we should just remove the > > > > assert and set it to whatever the value happens to be (including empty) > > > The assertion enforces that ModuleListProperties::Initialize() has been > > > called. If we want to make it more convenient, we can add a default > > > argument `= "dummy"` for clients that don't link against clang. > > I was actually thinking that instead of calling it `Initialize` (which > > sounds generic and like it's required) we would just call it > > `SetDefaultClangModulesCachePath` and have the user directly call that. > > With a name like `Initialize`, it makes the user think that it's required, > > but in fact the only thing it's initializing is something that is optional, > > so it shouldn't be required. > > > > It's possible I'm misunderstanding something though. > My point was that this *is* required (for all clients of lldb that also link > against clang). When LLDB initializes clang it must set a module cache path > because clang doesn't implement a fallback. If there's a client of LLDB using the public API and/or clang then that client would also be using `SystemInitializerFull` (or at the very least, would be responsible for initializing the set of things they need, one of which would be this path). My point is that `Core` should ultimately have no knowledge that something called clang even exists, and it definitely shouldn't be limiting the use of itself based on the needs of a specific client since it something that is useful to all clients. If a particular client requires clang, that client should initialize clang. With an assert, this is requiring a non clang-based client to run some initialization code that is only required for a clang-based client, which doesn't seem like a reasonable restriction (imagine if every downstream developer using every possible set of random 3rd party libraries started asserting in low-level debugger code that their optional component had been initialized). https://reviews.llvm.org/D47235 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
