Michael137 marked 2 inline comments as not done. Michael137 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Target/Platform.h:479 + /// to an internal SDK + bool found_internal_sdk = false; + ---------------- Michael137 wrote: > aprantl wrote: > > These flags really only make sense in the context of an XcodeSDK, so why > > not just return an XcodeSDK or XcodeSDK::Info object here? Otherwise we'll > > probably introduce subtle bugs due to a lossy translation between the flags. > Yup I think that'd be better. That'll also make it easier to use from the > Swift plugin Actually on second look, the `XcodeSDK` and `XcodeSDK::Info` objects represent information about a single (possibly parsed) SDK path. Whereas what the intention here was is to let the caller know whether we encountered a public/internal SDK while scanning all the CUs. Since we only return a single `XcodeSDK` (not all the ones we looked at) in my opinion it isn't quite right to store that information in it. This is all really only used to [[ https://github.com/apple/llvm-project/blob/6c39bfc9d521dd8af03ca5e9e6ec7d5d4a6e5e6e/lldb/source/Plugins/TypeSystem/Swift/SwiftASTContext.cpp#L1700-L1704 | print a Swift health ]]. Maybe we could instead just log this to `LLDBLog::Types`? Then we don't need to worry about returning any of this information. @aprantl Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156020/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156020 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
