Summary:
This is a pretty trivial, but I thought it was worth just checking that nobody feels it's completely the wrong thing to be doing.
The motivation is that when starting a new backend, you often start with a minimal stub, pretty much just FooTargetMachine and FooTargetInfo. Once that's built, you might naturally try `llc -march=foo myinput.ll` and it seems more developer-friendly if this ends up asserting due to the lack of MCAsmInfo with an informative message rather than just segfaulting.
Reviewers: MatzeB, chandlerc
Subscribers: bogner, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23443
llvm-svn: 279061
/// Turn exception handling constructs into something the code generators can
/// handle.
void TargetPassConfig::addPassesToHandleExceptions() {
- switch (TM->getMCAsmInfo()->getExceptionHandlingType()) {
+ const MCAsmInfo *MCAI = TM->getMCAsmInfo();
+ assert(MCAI && "No MCAsmInfo");
+ switch (MCAI->getExceptionHandlingType()) {
case ExceptionHandling::SjLj:
// SjLj piggy-backs on dwarf for this bit. The cleanups done apply to both
// Dwarf EH prepare needs to be run after SjLj prepare. Otherwise,