On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:33 PM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote:> But you're surely not suggesting that lld will segfault as an error > handling mode in production? >The document clearly states that (a) it is user's responsibility to give sane object files, and (b) a corrupted file may cause a fatal error or SEGV.> You say this was decided in a thread recently- could you please point me > at that? I find this really hard to believe. >Please find it yourself, that was a long thread. The current decision was not made lightly, so please respect that and take your time to understand the situation. Cheers,> > James > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 at 19:28, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:25 PM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> > Also, if it can segfault for some pathetic input >>> >>> Surely that's a bug though, not seriously designed behaviour? >>> >> >> No. That is a design choice. >> >> >>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 at 19:24 Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> We do not enable exceptions and longjmp is not safe. Also, if it can >>>> segfault for some pathetic input, "it longjmps in most cases" doesn't help >>>> people who wants 100% guarantee like you. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If it can exit, why can't it longjmp back to a library consumer at >>>>> least? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 at 19:20 Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:16 PM, James Molloy < >>>>>> james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> > Correct >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Out of interest, how does LLD itself handle error reporting when >>>>>>> invoked from the command line, and how does it avoid segfaulting in that >>>>>>> case? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It generally reports an error and exit, or in rare circumstances it >>>>>> just segfaults. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 at 19:14 Rafael Espíndola < >>>>>>> rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 21 March 2016 at 15:10, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > Well sure, it's unlikely, but how many consumers can make that >>>>>>>> sort of >>>>>>>> > guarantee? And if a consumer can't guarantee the integrity of the >>>>>>>> ELF file >>>>>>>> > they have no choice but not to use LLD, or to fork before using >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Rafael >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160321/4b2b8a27/attachment.html>
Tim Northover via llvm-dev
2016-Mar-21 19:57 UTC
[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation
>> You say this was decided in a thread recently- could you please point me >> at that? I find this really hard to believe. > > Please find it yourself, that was a long thread.Not helpful. The thread appears to be available here: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/92955.>The current decision was > not made lightly, so please respect that and take your time to understand > the situation.It was, however, made extremely controversially. Tim.
Thanks Tim, the reason I asked was I was unable to find the right search runes. On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 at 19:57, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:> >> You say this was decided in a thread recently- could you please point me > >> at that? I find this really hard to believe. > > > > Please find it yourself, that was a long thread. > > Not helpful. The thread appears to be available here: > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/92955. > > >The current decision was > > not made lightly, so please respect that and take your time to understand > > the situation. > > It was, however, made extremely controversially. > > Tim. >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160321/aae30e54/attachment.html>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:> >> You say this was decided in a thread recently- could you please point me > >> at that? I find this really hard to believe. > > > > Please find it yourself, that was a long thread. > > Not helpful. The thread appears to be available here: > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/92955. > > >The current decision was > > not made lightly, so please respect that and take your time to understand > > the situation. > > It was, however, made extremely controversially. >That is I guess we needed a decision. And the decision was made for not sparking the same discussion again so soon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160321/e04c1245/attachment.html>