thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM [Jul 2011]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Talin

2011-Jul-27 04:17 UTC

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

Here's an example of how this would be used: In the constructor for
ConstantVector, there's an assert:

  assert(C->getType() == T->getElementType() &&
         "Initializer for vector element doesn't match vector element
type!");

I would change this to:

  ASSERT_STRM(C->getType() == T->getElementType(),
    "Initializer for vector element " << I - V.begin() <<
" with type " <<
    C->getType() << " doesn't match vector element type "
<<
    T->getElementType());

With more detailed assertions like this, a much larger class of programmer
errors can be diagnosed without having to go into the debugger.

Because the stream is a raw_ostream, LLVM types and values can easily be
printed to the stream without having to convert them to string form.

Based on the suggestions so far, I'm guessing that the macro would look like
this:

#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"

namespace llvm {

// This just writes out "Assertion Failed" and the file/line number in
// a form that IDEs can parse.
void assertion_prologue(const char * file, unsigned line);

// This does the trap or abort or whatever.
void assertion_trap();

#if NDEBUG
  #define LLVM_ASSERT_STRM(expr, args) do {} while false
  // Alternatively
  // #define LLVM_ASSERT_STRM(expr, args) (void)0
#else

  /// Assertion macro that acts as an error output stream. Typical usage:
  ///
  ///   LLVM_ASSERT_STRM(a != b, "Expected " << a <<
" == " << " b")
  #define LLVM_ASSERT_STRM(expr, args) \
  do { if (!(expr)) { \
      assertion_prologue(__FILE__, __LINE__); \
      errs() << args << "\n"; \
      assertion_trap(); \
    } while (false)

#endif

/// Assertion macro that behaves like standard C assert().
#define LLVM_ASSERT(expr) LLVM_LLASSEERT_STRM(expr, #expr)

/// Assertion macro that expects two values to be equal, as defined
/// by the equality operator.
#define LLVM_LLASSERT_EQ(expected, actual) \
  LLVM_LLASSEERT_STRM(expected == actual, "Expected: " <<
expected << \
                 " but actually was " << actual)


I'm open to suggestions on naming - LLVM_ASSERT_STRM may be a little too
verbose, but you have to be careful about name collisions since macros
aren't namespaced. In particular I want to avoid any overlap with Google
Test, which has a bunch of ASSERT_XXX macros.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at
gmail.com>wrote:
> sorry, my previous message got sent too early
>
> I think the macro should look something like this:
>
> #define ASSERT_STRM(cond,expr) \
>  do {
>   if (cond) {
>     std::cerr << expr << std::end;
>     assertion_trap ();
>   }
>  } while (false)
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at
gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> wrapping the macro's body in:
>>
>> do { ... } while (false)
>>
>> would make the the macro a proper statement so that:
>>
>> if (cond)
>>   ASSERT(some_other_cond);
>> else
>>   do_something_cool ();
>>
>> compiles as expected.
>>
>> IMO, it would work as such
>>
>> #define ASSERT_STM(cond,expr)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at
gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> He wants to be able to resume execution from the debugger after
>>> assertion failure.
>>>
>>> Reid
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Alistair Lynn <arplynn at
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi-
>>> >
>>> >> Yep, but tripping the debugger is highly non-portable.
>>> >
>>> > You're suggesting that inline asm is more portable than
calling abort?
>>> >
>>> > Alistair
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>

-- 
-- Talin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110726/43267dcc/attachment.html>

Nathan Jeffords

2011-Jul-27 05:20 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

For a non-verbose version, maybe "assertf" or "asserts",
though that may be
too short. Something like that could work if it where limited to non
externally visible code (i.e. only cpp files or internal headers)

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's an example of how this would be used: In the constructor for
> ConstantVector, there's an assert:
>
>   assert(C->getType() == T->getElementType() &&
>          "Initializer for vector element doesn't match vector
element
> type!");
>
> I would change this to:
>
>   ASSERT_STRM(C->getType() == T->getElementType(),
>     "Initializer for vector element " << I - V.begin()
<< " with type " <<
>     C->getType() << " doesn't match vector element type
" <<
>     T->getElementType());
>
> With more detailed assertions like this, a much larger class of programmer
> errors can be diagnosed without having to go into the debugger.
>
> Because the stream is a raw_ostream, LLVM types and values can easily be
> printed to the stream without having to convert them to string form.
>
> Based on the suggestions so far, I'm guessing that the macro would look
> like this:
>
> #include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
>
> namespace llvm {
>
> // This just writes out "Assertion Failed" and the file/line
number in
> // a form that IDEs can parse.
> void assertion_prologue(const char * file, unsigned line);
>
> // This does the trap or abort or whatever.
> void assertion_trap();
>
> #if NDEBUG
>   #define LLVM_ASSERT_STRM(expr, args) do {} while false
>   // Alternatively
>   // #define LLVM_ASSERT_STRM(expr, args) (void)0
> #else
>
>   /// Assertion macro that acts as an error output stream. Typical usage:
>   ///
>   ///   LLVM_ASSERT_STRM(a != b, "Expected " << a <<
" == " << " b")
>   #define LLVM_ASSERT_STRM(expr, args) \
>   do { if (!(expr)) { \
>       assertion_prologue(__FILE__, __LINE__); \
>       errs() << args << "\n"; \
>       assertion_trap(); \
>     } while (false)
>
> #endif
>
> /// Assertion macro that behaves like standard C assert().
> #define LLVM_ASSERT(expr) LLVM_LLASSEERT_STRM(expr, #expr)
>
> /// Assertion macro that expects two values to be equal, as defined
> /// by the equality operator.
> #define LLVM_LLASSERT_EQ(expected, actual) \
>   LLVM_LLASSEERT_STRM(expected == actual, "Expected: " <<
expected << \
>                  " but actually was " << actual)
>
>
> I'm open to suggestions on naming - LLVM_ASSERT_STRM may be a little
too
> verbose, but you have to be careful about name collisions since macros
> aren't namespaced. In particular I want to avoid any overlap with
Google
> Test, which has a bunch of ASSERT_XXX macros.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at
gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> sorry, my previous message got sent too early
>>
>> I think the macro should look something like this:
>>
>> #define ASSERT_STRM(cond,expr) \
>>  do {
>>   if (cond) {
>>     std::cerr << expr << std::end;
>>     assertion_trap ();
>>   }
>>  } while (false)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at
gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> wrapping the macro's body in:
>>>
>>> do { ... } while (false)
>>>
>>> would make the the macro a proper statement so that:
>>>
>>> if (cond)
>>>   ASSERT(some_other_cond);
>>> else
>>>   do_something_cool ();
>>>
>>> compiles as expected.
>>>
>>> IMO, it would work as such
>>>
>>> #define ASSERT_STM(cond,expr)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at
gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> He wants to be able to resume execution from the debugger after
>>>> assertion failure.
>>>>
>>>> Reid
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Alistair Lynn <arplynn at
gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Hi-
>>>> >
>>>> >> Yep, but tripping the debugger is highly non-portable.
>>>> >
>>>> > You're suggesting that inline asm is more portable
than calling abort?
>>>> >
>>>> > Alistair
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -- Talin
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110726/cb48deeb/attachment.html>

Chris Lattner

2011-Jul-27 05:59 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Talin wrote:
> Here's an example of how this would be used: In the constructor for
ConstantVector, there's an assert:
> 
>   assert(C->getType() == T->getElementType() &&
>          "Initializer for vector element doesn't match vector
element type!");
> 
> I would change this to:
> 
>   ASSERT_STRM(C->getType() == T->getElementType(),
>     "Initializer for vector element " << I - V.begin()
<< " with type " <<
>     C->getType() << " doesn't match vector element type
" <<
>     T->getElementType());
> 
> With more detailed assertions like this, a much larger class of programmer
errors can be diagnosed without having to go into the debugger.
> 
> Because the stream is a raw_ostream, LLVM types and values can easily be
printed to the stream without having to convert them to string form.
I'm unconvinced that this is worth it at all.  This is only going to allow
you to "avoid going into the debugger" in the most trivial cases.

-Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110726/886f2e3a/attachment.html>

Talin

2011-Jul-27 07:34 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Talin wrote:
>
> Here's an example of how this would be used: In the constructor for
> ConstantVector, there's an assert:
>
>   assert(C->getType() == T->getElementType() &&
>          "Initializer for vector element doesn't match vector
element
> type!");
>
> I would change this to:
>
>   ASSERT_STRM(C->getType() == T->getElementType(),
>     "Initializer for vector element " << I - V.begin()
<< " with type " <<
>     C->getType() << " doesn't match vector element type
" <<
>     T->getElementType());
>
> With more detailed assertions like this, a much larger class of programmer
> errors can be diagnosed without having to go into the debugger.
>
> Because the stream is a raw_ostream, LLVM types and values can easily be
> printed to the stream without having to convert them to string form.
>
>
> I'm unconvinced that this is worth it at all.  This is only going to
allow
> you to "avoid going into the debugger" in the most trivial cases.
>
> From an API user's perspective, those trivial cases happen quitefrequently, at least in my experience. Often times I only need to know what
type is involved to figure out what went wrong.

-Chris>


-- 
-- Talin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110727/3cc5cf1e/attachment.html>

jo at durchholz.org

2011-Jul-27 14:43 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

> I'm unconvinced that this is worth it at all.  This is only going to
allow
> you to "avoid going into the debugger" in the most trivial cases.
People doing something new tend to run into the trivial cases quite often.
That's exactly the user population that will profit most from more
informative error messages.

E.g. people who're getting their feet wet with LLVM in general.
Even more so, people starting to hack on LLVM.

Just my 2c.

Talin

2011-Jul-28 19:07 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Talin wrote:
>
> Here's an example of how this would be used: In the constructor for
> ConstantVector, there's an assert:
>
>   assert(C->getType() == T->getElementType() &&
>          "Initializer for vector element doesn't match vector
element
> type!");
>
> I would change this to:
>
>   ASSERT_STRM(C->getType() == T->getElementType(),
>     "Initializer for vector element " << I - V.begin()
<< " with type " <<
>     C->getType() << " doesn't match vector element type
" <<
>     T->getElementType());
>
> With more detailed assertions like this, a much larger class of programmer
> errors can be diagnosed without having to go into the debugger.
>
> Because the stream is a raw_ostream, LLVM types and values can easily be
> printed to the stream without having to convert them to string form.
>
>
> I'm unconvinced that this is worth it at all.  This is only going to
allow
> you to "avoid going into the debugger" in the most trivial cases.
>
> Question - are you opposed to having a general "assertion with
streamedarguments" facility in llvm/Support at all, or are you merely opposed to
the
work involved in replacing the existing assertions en-masse? If it's the
latter, I'll make you a deal - every time I get an assert that I don't
think
gives me enough information, I'll send a patch to improve it. But that can
only happen if the general mechanism is in place first. And I'd use that
general mechanism in my own code regardless of whether it's used in LLVM or
not.

> -Chris
>


-- 
-- Talin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110728/b254f536/attachment.html>

Maybe Matching Threads

Search for more apparently analagous threads

llvm dev - Jul 2011 - [LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM

Maybe Matching Threads