JDevlieghere wrote: > > Why not increase TypeSystem::GetNumChildren to return a size_t instead? > > We could, but even 2^32 seems like an outrageous amount of children to me. > What would be a use-case for this? A ValueObject that has the entire address > space as synthetic children? > > There is other code that assumes that we can store the result of > GetNumChildren() in an int64 and use negative numbers as out-of-band > signaling. We could replace that with std::optional of course.
But what's there to gain by limiting it to 32 bits instead of 64? Saying it's unlikely or overkill isn't a very strong argument. I think a possibly better answer to Alex' question is probably: because `SBValue::GetNumChildren` returns a `uint32_t` and we cannot change that, so we'd have to check for overflow at SB API level. I don't feel strongly either way (though if it were me, I'd make everything a `size_t`.) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83501 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
