jingham added a comment. I don't have any objections to the contents of this patch per se. But I wonder if having to do all this work to separate the uses of Args from the options parser so we don't drag it in in some low level uses doesn't rather mean the Args class was not appropriate for use at that level, when what they really meant was just a collection of strings. For instance, we use the Args class to hold arguments to pass to running processes. That's convenient when we parse them from commands into run-args, but hardly essential to the function of passing a collection of strings to posix_spawnp or its like.
I haven't gone through and audited all the uses you are trying to separate out from the options part of Args, but if possible it would be cleaner to have the class that's supposed to be cheek to jowl with the command line parsing, and another to store a list of strings. https://reviews.llvm.org/D43837 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
