felipepiovezan wrote: > I think it would be better to change `Process::ReadMemoryRanges` to return > `llvm::SmallVector<llvm::Expected<llvm::MutableArrayRef<uint8_t>>>` and then > we could change `lldb_private::StringList` to hold a > `std::vector<llvm::Expected<std::string>>`, add a `HasError` method to check > if it contains any error, as well as a `GetErrorAtIndex()` method to surface > the error appropriately.
This was discussed during the RFC, and the conclusion was that if a memory read did not return the number of bytes requested, a user could call the single-address variant if they really wanted more details. Even then, it was felt that _what_ the error was was not relevant, only the fact that _some_ error occurred, which is already expressed by the read length. > That way you could keep your SBStringString api, but in the even where there > was a memory read failure for one of the addresses, the user could get the > error from the same SBStringList object. This would be akin to changing the behavior of an SB object, which I don't think we are allowed to do https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/172026 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
