jingham accepted this revision. jingham added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
That would be cleaner. OTOH, the original reason for these checkers was to help people understand crashes in their expressions more clearly. Supposedly, modern languages "don't have pointers" and can't have bad objects, so the kind of crashes this instrumentation was supposed to help with "can't happen" and checkers for such languages wouldn't be all that helpful... So while cleaner, maybe generalizing this more fully isn't a high priority change? In which case, just getting them out of generic code seems fine as a stopping point. Your choice. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64591/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64591 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
