JDevlieghere accepted this revision. JDevlieghere added inline comments. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Interpreter/ScriptInterpreter.h:302 + virtual StructuredData::GenericSP + CreateScriptedStopHook(lldb::TargetSP target_sp, const char *class_name, + StructuredDataImpl *args_data, Status &error) { ---------------- jingham wrote: > JDevlieghere wrote: > > Could this function return an `Expected<StructuredData::GenericSP>` instead? > There are a bunch of instances of objects created to insert scripting into > various lldb callbacks around in lldb. It might make sense to convert them > all to Expected's, but I wouldn't want to do it piecemeal. > > Adding a new one of these is also a bit cargo-culty (another issue we should > probably clean up as a separate bit of work) and so making the same things > look different is not doing the next person who adds one any favors. > > These are also functions that are not going to get called promiscuously, but > really from one "make me one of these" places, so they aren't crying out for > protection against calling them w/o checking for errors. > > But anyway, IMO if we're going to start restructuring the pattern for setting > these callback objects up, we should do that as a separate commit and do it > for all of them. If I counted correctly there are 2 others: `CreateScriptedThreadPlan` which takes a `std::string&` as an error and `CreateScriptedBreakpointResolver` which doesn't seem to do error handling at all. So I think we should try to refactor all three to return `Expected`s. I agree we should do that in a separate patch. ================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Target/Target.h:1231 + std::string m_class_name; + StructuredDataImpl *m_extra_args; // We own this structured data, + // but the SD itself manages the UP. ---------------- jingham wrote: > JDevlieghere wrote: > > Please make these Doxygen comments (`///`) and put them on the line above > > the variable. > I didn't quite do that. > > The comment about "We own..." doesn't seem to me to be a doc comment. It > isn't something that a user of this stop hook class would need to know. It's > just an answer to a question somebody reading the code closely might ask > about why we don't have to have something keeping this m_extra_args alive. I > did add a doc comment for this field, but kept the side comment as is. It's private anyway, so I think the boundaries are pretty fluid. But I don't feel strongly about it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88123/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88123 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits