[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D13657: [lldb] char summary provider

[Enrico Granata via lldb-commits]

granata.enrico added a comment.

So, if you do the explicit constructor change and handle the case of a nullptr Callback I think it should be good to go. Looking forward to it!


================
Comment at: source/API/SBTypeSummary.cpp:157
@@ +156,3 @@
+                            SBStream stream;
+                            if (!cb(valobj.GetSP(), &opt, stream))
+                                return false;
----------------
evgeny777 wrote:
> granata.enrico wrote:
> > evgeny777 wrote:
> > > granata.enrico wrote:
> > > > I assume you are essentially relying on the SBValue constructor that takes a ValueObjectSP here, right?
> > > > And similarly for the SummaryOptions?
> > > You're right - implicit construction here
> > Sorry to nitpick, but is there any advantage to not using explicit construction here?
> None, except more compact code. Would like to use explicit construction here?
Yes, I would prefer that

It saves us a few lines of code, but it is confusing to read, and I want to make sure we don't break sometime in the future due to changes in the constructor (the ones taking SPs are technically private to us)


http://reviews.llvm.org/D13657