george.karpenkov abandoned this revision.
george.karpenkov added a comment.
@dcoughlin OK, I guess you could theoretically come up with a scenario where an
error in this code would lead to crashing-while-crashing which would obscure
the original error.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38986
__
dcoughlin added a comment.
Personally, I don't think this is worth it and I find it unpleasant to add
untestable code -- especially if that code is going to stick around in release
builds.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38986
___
cfe-commits mailing li
george.karpenkov added a comment.
@dcoughlin @NoQ so can this be committed?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38986
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
NoQ added a comment.
> Does llvm_unreachable() guarantee that the string construction code is
> completely removed from release builds?
http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#assert-liberally:
> When assertions are disabled (i.e. in release builds), `llvm_unreachable`
> becomes a hint to co
george.karpenkov added a comment.
@dcoughlin
> Is it when an end-user is running a build with assertions and can't provide a
> reproducer but can provide the console output?
Yes, or just for developer staring at the crash for the first time, or for the
crashers in CI.
> Does llvm_unreachable(
dcoughlin added a comment.
What is the workflow where this is needed? Is it when an end-user is running a
build with assertions and can't provide a reproducer but can provide the
console output?
Does llvm_unreachable() guarantee that the string construction code is
completely removed from rele
danielmarjamaki added a comment.
> I think it is much better when the assert failure tells the developer _what_
> value is failing, rather than saying "oops we are dead".
yes of course, more informative assert messages is better.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38986
_
george.karpenkov created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: szepet, xazax.hun.
@dcoughlin I'm curious whether you'd like such a change: in general, I think it
is much better when the assert failure tells the developer _what_ value is
failing, rather than saying "oops we are dead".
I would
