xiaobai added a comment. In D64591#1581878 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64591#1581878>, @jingham wrote:
> 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. I don't think of it as high priority. That might change at some in the future, but for the time being I think that there are bigger fish to fry. 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
