ravitheja added inline comments.
================ Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/Linux/NativeProcessLinux.h:277 + + llvm::DenseMap<lldb::tid_t, ProcessorTraceMonitorSP> + m_processor_trace_monitor; ---------------- labath wrote: > ravitheja wrote: > > labath wrote: > > > I'd like to downgrade these to unique pointers to ProcessTraceMonitor. > > > There's no reason for these to ever outlive or escape the process > > > instance, so it's natural to say they are strongly owned by it. In other > > > places where you use ProcessorTraceMonitorSP you can just use regular > > > pointers or references (depending on whether they can be null or not). > > Hi, I don't see the advantage of changing to unique pointers ? coz when the > > process dies they will be destroyed anyhow, plus using shared pointers > > makes it easier for functions operating with the ProcessTraceMonitor to > > work. > It makes it clear that the Process is the owner of these objects (and not for > example "sharing" them with anyone else). Plus you should use the simplest > tool that gets the job done and unique_ptr is definitely simpler. So I'd > reverse the question: If there is no need for using shared_ptr, why do it? > > I disagree with the statement that it makes it harder for the functions to > work. Please provide an example. Ok I was thinking that working with shared_pointers was a bit cleaner approach than working with references or raw pointers, but in this case won't make much of a difference. I will make them unique pointers. No problem. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33674 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
