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); ---------------- zturner wrote: > 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). In short, `Core` is too low level to be making any assumptions whatsoever about the needs of a particular client. It may be required for all clients of lldb that use clang, but `Core` is not the right place to be making decisions based on whether a client of lldb uses clang (or any other optional external library / component). https://reviews.llvm.org/D47235 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
