aprantl added a comment.
I think I'm fine with this variant modulo outstanding comments!
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Core/ModuleList.cpp:1080
+ bool ret = true;
+ ForEach([&](const ModuleSP &module_sp) {
+ ret &= callback(module_sp);
----------------
kastiglione wrote:
> I wonder why ForEach doesn't deal out a `Module &`? I would think a
> ModuleList should not allow for null Module pointers.
I think this is historic. +1 for taking a Module & (unless we for some reason
need a shared_ptr in the lambda).
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Target.cpp:1704
+
+ // If a module was torn down it will have torn
+ // down the 'TypeSystem's that we used as source
----------------
kastiglione wrote:
> nit: Why such a narrow line wrapping width?
Can you make it clear that this comment is talking about TypeSystemClang
specifically?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138724/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138724
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
