jingham accepted this revision.
jingham added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
This is a useful addition. I don't have a problem with it going in as is.
It is unfortunate that we don't have an LLDB_INVALID_{USER,GROUP}_ID we could
use to tell us whether the ID was invalid. We're doing that internally anyway
- where UINT32_MAX stands in for the definition. I guess you could argue that
it allows us the flexibility to make what the invalid process ID is vary with
platform, but we use a define and not an IsValid for
ProcessID/LLDB_INVALID_PROCESS_ID so we aren't consistently asserting a general
principle that we can divorce the validity of this sort of option from its
value.
Presumably you were just following the precedent set by the SBAttachInfo class,
so I don't think it's worth holding up this good change to fix that issue,
however.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35881
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
