kastiglione added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Interpreter/CommandInterpreter.h:718 + /// been told. + ChildrenOmissionWarningStatus m_truncation_warning; + /// Whether we reached the maximum child nesting depth and whether the user ---------------- kastiglione wrote: > shafik wrote: > > Why not use in class member initialization? It looks like they have default > > values. I am not sure why the rest of the values where not caught the other > > day when I ran clang-tidy. > I was following the convention within the file. What's the ideal change, > initialize all in this change? Or initialize the two that I have edited? I think it's best to leave these as is, and make a follow up change that uses member initialization for all of these. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123954/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123954 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
