granata.enrico added a comment. So, if you do the explicit constructor change and handle the case of a nullptr Callback I think it should be good to go. Looking forward to it!
================ Comment at: source/API/SBTypeSummary.cpp:157 @@ +156,3 @@ + SBStream stream; + if (!cb(valobj.GetSP(), &opt, stream)) + return false; ---------------- evgeny777 wrote: > granata.enrico wrote: > > evgeny777 wrote: > > > granata.enrico wrote: > > > > I assume you are essentially relying on the SBValue constructor that > > > > takes a ValueObjectSP here, right? > > > > And similarly for the SummaryOptions? > > > You're right - implicit construction here > > Sorry to nitpick, but is there any advantage to not using explicit > > construction here? > None, except more compact code. Would like to use explicit construction here? Yes, I would prefer that It saves us a few lines of code, but it is confusing to read, and I want to make sure we don't break sometime in the future due to changes in the constructor (the ones taking SPs are technically private to us) http://reviews.llvm.org/D13657 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits