================
@@ -71,22 +101,26 @@ BreakpointLocationsRequestHandler::Run(
locations.emplace_back(line, column);
}
}
+}
- // The line entries are sorted by addresses, but we must return the list
- // ordered by line / column position.
- std::sort(locations.begin(), locations.end());
- locations.erase(llvm::unique(locations), locations.end());
+template <unsigned N>
+void BreakpointLocationsRequestHandler::AddAssemblyBreakpointLocations(
+ llvm::SmallVector<std::pair<uint32_t, uint32_t>, N> &locations,
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
Looking at how this is called, maybe you don't even need to take this by
reference, and you can have this return a
`llvm::SmallVector<std::pair<uint32_t, uint32_t>, 8>`. Honestly I don't even
know if the `SmallVector` optimization is worth it here, personally I would've
just returned a regular `std::vector`. If you change the return type, you can
also change the name of the method from `Add` to `Get`. Now it looks like
there's potentially multiple calls adding values to the location list.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139969
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
