From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <whitequark@whitequark.org>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B43267EE25
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed,  6 Nov 2013 08:06:28 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  whitequark@whitequark.org) identity=pra;
  client-ip=176.58.103.125;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org";
  x-sender="whitequark@whitequark.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  whitequark@whitequark.org designates 176.58.103.125 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=176.58.103.125;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org";
  x-sender="whitequark@whitequark.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail.whitequark.org) identity=helo;
  client-ip=176.58.103.125;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail.whitequark.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmEOADrpeVKwOmd9/2dsb2JhbABZhxqGR7MDgnqBOXSCJgEFIw8BBVEEBQIaAiYCAiwrBhuHfZA3m16SQIEpiAiGLxaCVYFEA4k6oFmDKzc
X-IPAS-Result: AmEOADrpeVKwOmd9/2dsb2JhbABZhxqGR7MDgnqBOXSCJgEFIw8BBVEEBQIaAiYCAiwrBhuHfZA3m16SQIEpiAiGLxaCVYFEA4k6oFmDKzc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,644,1378850400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="41165926"
Received: from fehu.whitequark.org (HELO mail.whitequark.org) ([176.58.103.125])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2013 08:05:52 +0100
Received: by mail.whitequark.org (Postfix, from userid 33)
	id C08104D715; Wed,  6 Nov 2013 11:06:26 +0400 (MSK)
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1000:main.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:06:26 +0400
From: Peter Zotov <whitequark@whitequark.org>
In-Reply-To: <52796387.8070602@gmail.com>
References: <d7f9f3fb65cc0c93ba87569464c80910@whitequark.org>
 <5278D1D1.4060009@gmail.com>
 <523e06f6b965a40b16bc8fe69a88e339@whitequark.org>
 <52796387.8070602@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e9170de1263cf3f05ec05fa5ae4a945e@whitequark.org>
X-Sender: whitequark@whitequark.org
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.6
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] LLVM OCaml bindings

Jacques-Pascal Deplaix писал 06.11.2013 01:30:
> Why LLVM chose to do Asserts instead of raise an exception ?
> Anyways, thanks for your impressive work. I will consider re-switch to
> the official binding if it's finally usable.
> 

Several reasons.

1) C++ exceptions are very costly in terms of space (RTTI), and also in
    terms of time when they're raised. LLVM, striving to be efficient,
    uses neither exceptions nor RTTI.

2) Writing exception-safe C++ code can be very tricky: essentially, one
    needs to make all data structures transactional and ensure that
    any control-flow path, whether it involves exceptions or not, leaves
    them in a valid state.

3) LLVM has about seven thousand assertions. The amount of code 
required
    to gracefully handle all that with exceptions is huge, and since
    asserts most of the time test for conditions presumed impossible,
    how do you test those codepaths?

I agree that an error handling strategy better than puts();abort() 
would
be nice, but I cannot see LLVM using exceptions, either.

-- 
   WBR, Peter Zotov.