labath added a reviewer: jingham. labath added a comment. + Jim for SB API.
I ran into this quirk of SBCommandReturnObject a couple of weeks ago, and then ran away screaming. I agree that this approach isn't nice, but probably there isn't a nice approach to this at this point. One possibility you could consider is storing a shared_ptr<CommandRO> inside SBCommandRO and encoding the ownership into the deleter of the shared_ptr (regular deleter => owned, noop deleter => unowned). ================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:24 +CommandReturnObject & +SBCommandReturnObject_ref(lldb::SBCommandReturnObject &sb_cmd); +} ---------------- Add a comment to explain the purpose of this function? ================ Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/api/command-return-object/main.cpp:18 + result = subcommand(dbg, "help"); + result = result; + if (!result.Succeeded()) ---------------- Is that intentional? If so, why? ================ Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/api/command-return-object/main.cpp:23 + } +} crasher; + ---------------- This looks weird. Please use a separate declaration for the variable and the class. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67589/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67589 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
