[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

[Pavel Labath via lldb-commits]

labath added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190#584882, @mehdi_amini wrote:

> > and has potential to introduce latent bugs.
>
> Can you elaborate on this?


If some of the duplicated objects get passed across the api boundary, things will start to break, although the breakage may not be apparent immediately (e.g. In Todd's case things were only breaking in debug builds because that enabled additional constructors). As we noted in the other thread, it should be fine as long as we keep our API free of the llvm classes.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190