labath added a comment. In D67589#1674640 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67589#1674640>, @jankratochvil wrote:
> Maybe http://lldb.llvm.org/resources/sbapi.html could say that and it would > be much more clear. That's probably a good idea, though I would still keep the list of restrictions spelled out as ABI can be broken in a lot of subtle and unobvious ways (at least to a person who has never tried to maintain a stable abi). > > >> lldb_private::CommandReturnObjectImpl { >> bool owned; >> std::unique_ptr<lldb_private::CommandReturnObject> m_opaque_up; >> }; > > Is this a request to rework this patch this way? If so isn't it safer / more > clear to do it rather this way? > > lldb_private::CommandReturnObjectImpl { > bool owned; > lldb_private::CommandReturnObject *m_opaque_ptr; > ~CommandReturnObjectImpl() { if (owned) delete m_opaque_ptr; } > }; I think I would like that better than the swap trick. Since you're now inside a pimpl, you can replace the two members with a llvm::PointerIntPair, if you are so inclined. 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
