I can see both of them making sense, but I would actually prefer the new behavior you inadvertently introduced. I've looked at the callers and it seems no user sets find_directories to false, so I guess it's fine to change the behavior, if we want to.
On 10 March 2017 at 14:08, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > You're right, I didn't notice that. But since you mention it, surely that > had to have been a bug in the original implementation right? That flag isn't > intended to be a synonym for "non recursive iteration ", because that's what > the Next enumeration value is for. The algorithm would intentionally leave > that decision up to the callback. > > Find directories seems to want to mean "should you call my callback with > directories?" > > Imagine someone wants all files recursively but nothing else, that was > impossible before, they would have to opt in to seeing each directory just > so they could return Enter > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:27 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator > <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> labath added a comment. >> >> >> >> >> >> ================ >> Comment at: lldb/source/Host/common/FileSpec.cpp:786 >> + continue; >> + if (!find_directories && fs::is_directory(Status)) >> + continue; >> ---------------- >> This looks like it changes behavior. Previously, if `find_directories` was >> false this function would *not* recurse into them, whereas now it will. I >> guess you did not intend to do that (?) >> >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D30807 >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
