JDevlieghere added a comment. In D59235#1426169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235#1426169>, @probinson wrote:
> In D59235#1425443 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235#1425443>, @zturner wrote: > > > In D59235#1425436 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235#1425436>, @clayborg > > wrote: > > > > > My main concern with the LLVM DWARF parser is all of the asserts in the > > > code. If you attempt to use a DWARFDIE without first checking it for > > > validity, it will crash on you instead of returning a good error or > > > default value. That makes me really nervous as we shouldn't just crash > > > the debugger. The switching over won't be too hard, just the fallout from > > > the LLDB versions of the class that do error checking and return good > > > error/default values and LLVM being very strict. > > > > > > Sure, I'm prepared to deal all that appropriately. I don't plan to regress > > LLDB's stability in the process. > > > > That's why for now I'm just doing very small preliminary steps to get the > > two interfaces to be closer to each other and simplify the problem space. > > We can worry about the asserts and all of that when we actually start > > moving pieces of LLDB to use LLVM's classes (which isn't in this patch). > > > A long term plan of moving LLVM's parser away from asserts and toward error > reporting on bad input would also make the binutils that try to read DWARF > more robust and useful for trying to diagnose bad object files. I'm all for > it. Agreed, and we've been doing this for new patches for a while now. However, I very strongly prefer having asserts over "returning a default value", which only hides real bugs. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
