aprantl added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47991#1139249, @clayborg wrote:
> that is the right way to do it, but we can't overload on return type only. We > will need the old version of the code to be in the API for compatibility. > Overloading by return type will result is two symbols with the same name. If > we change the API over to return an SBError, we will crash programs that > linked against the old API as it now becomes returns something, possibly a > struct return type, so it will crash older programs. I get that. My question was whether it is better to add a new overload that adds an SBError& argument versus adding a new overload that returns and SBError *and* has a different name. In any case, Jim pointed out that we are using both variants in other places, so it doesn't really seem to matter. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D47991 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
