labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33035#798925, @abhishek.aggarwal wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33035#798885, @labath wrote: > > > Hm... that's a bit of a drag. I guess the SB API never ran into this > > problem because it always provides it's own vector-like classes > > (SBModuleList, SBFileSpecList, etc.). I guess the most canonical way would > > be to follow that example and have your own class for a list of > > instructions. However, that is a bit annoying, so I do see a case for > > making code generated by swig as an exception to the rule. > > > Hmm .. Is the decision about enabling exception handling only for swig > generated code lie in LLDB's community's hands or we will have to ask LLVM > community for this too? I can add another class to resolve this problem but I > am not sure whether it is the right way to go. I think we can start with an email to lldb-dev and see how it goes. Nobody on the llvm side uses swig. I'm not sure what would be a better solution either... I don't like either of them :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D33035 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
