zturner added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Commands/CommandObjectTarget.cpp:2569
+ }
+ StreamString strm;
+ module_spec.GetUUID().Dump(&strm);
aprantl wrote:
> Can you manually double-check this one?
For large complex cases like
jingham added a comment.
When one or the other side of the if/else test is trivial, then this rewrite is
fine. When both the if and the else have a decent bit of code in them,
however, removing the "} else {" and the concluding "}" obscures the fact that
these are two coequal branches in the c
JDevlieghere abandoned this revision.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
I'm going to abandon this for now until we have better tooling to address Jim's
concerns here. I'm also not super happy with the formatting, which seems to be
off in quite a few locations. The problem is that clang-tidy knows to
aprantl added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterContextDarwin_arm.cpp:994
return FPURegSet;
else if (reg < k_num_registers)
return EXCRegSet;
This is inconsistent (do you need to re-run it until it reaches a fixpoint
vsk added a comment.
+ 1 to this. If there's a tidy plugin for misleading indention, that might
address some of Adrian's concerns.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55574/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55574
_
aprantl added a comment.
I'm mostly on board with making these changes, as it's good LLVM style to do
this. I highlighted a couple changes that might warrant a closer look.
Comment at: source/API/SBProcess.cpp:1233
error.SetErrorString("process is invalid");
}
+
--
JDevlieghere created this revision.
JDevlieghere added a reviewer: LLDB.
Herald added subscribers: jsji, teemperor, abidh, arphaman, atanasyan, kbarton,
arichardson, javed.absar, ki.stfu, nemanjai, kubamracek, sdardis, emaste,
srhines.
Herald added a reviewer: espindola.
Herald added a reviewer:
