clayborg added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:22-27
+namespace lldb_private {
+// Wrap SBCommandReturnObject::ref() so that any LLDB internal function can
+// call it but still no SB API users can call it.
+CommandReturnObject &
+SBCommandReturnObject_ref(lldb::SBCommandReturnObject &sb_cmd);
+} // namespace lldb_private
----------------
Easier to just make SBCommandReturnObject::ref() protected and friend any users
or just make it public?
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:99-100
friend class SBOptions;
+ friend lldb_private::CommandReturnObject &
+ lldb_private::SBCommandReturnObject_ref(SBCommandReturnObject &sb_cmd);
----------------
Remove if we make SBCommandReturnObject::ref() protected and friend any users
or just make it public?
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBCommandReturnObject.h:108
lldb_private::CommandReturnObject &ref() const;
----------------
Easier to just make SBCommandReturnObject::ref() protected and friend any users
or just make it public?
================
Comment at: lldb/source/API/SBCommandReturnObject.cpp:21-24
+lldb_private::CommandReturnObject &
+lldb_private::SBCommandReturnObject_ref(SBCommandReturnObject &sb_cmd) {
+ return sb_cmd.ref();
+}
----------------
Easier to just make SBCommandReturnObject::ref() protected and friend any users
or just make it public?
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67589/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67589
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
