On 13 March 2017 at 10:43, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12 March 2017 at 19:53, Luc Van Oostenryck > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:40:18PM +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: >>> At present there are a bunch of asserts for scenarios not handled by >>> Sparse LLVM backend. A more robust error handling method is needed >>> that works even in release builds, and doesn't abort the process. >>> Given the way the code is structured currently, I was thinking maybe >>> it will be easiest to use setjmp/longjmp mechanism to terminate the >>> LLVM backend on error. I am not sure that this entirely safe with LLVM >>> as the LLVM code is C++ - I think it might be okay as long as the LLVM >>> module / context is properly disposed at the end. >> >> By far, the best thing that can be done is to add support for the missing >> features/scenarios so that those asserts can be removed. >> > > Agreed, but that will probably take some time. In the meantime even > with the subset supported by Sparse-LLVM it can be used in > applications - provided it deals with supported features gracefully > and generates correct code for supported features. > Apologies for the typo - I meant to say 'it deals with unsupported features gracefully'. Regards -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
