davide added a comment. In D59911#1446787 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59911#1446787>, @aprantl wrote:
> Thanks for summarizing your thoughts, Davide. > > I think that what you wrote is a much better explanation of what I was trying > to say with > > Use these sparingly and only if error handling is not otherwise feasible. > > > I think that unless we can eliminate all uses of lldb_assert() from the code > we should document it, but discourage its use. Do you have any suggestions > for a better wording? I do personally believe that your wording is reasonable. If it was me, I would just be a little stronger and say that new code should never use lldbassert, and if you're touching existing code you might consider replacing it with proper error handling. I would also like to thank you personally for clarifying this whole situation. I am also responsible for using carelessly lldbassert in some places of the codebase, but your doc was good to make me think about it (and why to not use), and I guess it would be very useful for others as well [including new contributors]. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59911/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59911 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
