JDevlieghere accepted this revision. JDevlieghere added a comment. In D74157#1862537 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74157#1862537>, @labath wrote:
> Looks better. TBH, I'm not sure why/if we really need the case handling the > situation where the thread does not have a stop description. Ideally I'd just > move this code there (or delete it). +1, this doesn't seem like something that should be done at the API level. Otherwise LGTM. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74157/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74157 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
