JDevlieghere added a comment. In D58410#1403630 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58410#1403630>, @labath wrote:
> I think this looks mostly fine. See my comment about not using SB classes in > the reproducer api. I still kind of like the idea of naming the reproducer > class in some special way, to make it more obvious that it is not "just > another" SB class, but I'm not sure if that would be just more confusing. I'm afraid it's going to be confusing. I'll add a comment to the SBReproducer class to point out that we cannot rely on any other SB* objects because of bootstrapping. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58410/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58410 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
