clayborg accepted this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Just a question of if we need an optional unwind table instance instead of just an instance. I am fine either way. ================ Comment at: include/lldb/Core/Module.h:1108-1110 + llvm::Optional<UnwindTable> m_unwind_table; /// < Table of FuncUnwinders + /// objects created for this + /// Module's functions ---------------- Any reason to not just have a UnwindTable instance here? The accessor can't fail, so one must be created anyway right? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58129/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58129 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
