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

Enrico Granata via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 14 13:41:58 PDT 2015

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)


More information about the lldb-commits mailing list