We use UINT32_MAX and so forth all over in lldb. Were you planning to switch over all the uses? That seem like something you should not do unilaterally, but we should decide on as a group.
I originally thought maybe this would buy us some type safety, but it looks like (and the docs seem to indicate) this is strictly equivalent to UINT32_MAX. So as far as I can tell the change (unlike NULL -> nullptr) has no benefit. If that's true, then we should only do this if we agree it is a good idea. I would prefer not to make this wholesale change. Substituting a small number of very readable characters where all of them are significant for a much larger number that bury the interesting bit in the template argument does not to me improve readability. Jim > On Mar 11, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Eugene Zelenko via lldb-commits > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > - if (no_modules_in_filter || m_module_spec_list.FindFileIndex(0, > module_sp->GetFileSpec(), false) != UINT32_MAX) > + if (no_modules_in_filter || > + m_module_spec_list.FindFileIndex(0, module_sp->GetFileSpec(), > false) != std::numeric_limits<uint32_t>::max()) _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
