clayborg added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdData.cpp:419 + // Get a full path to the file. + std::unique_ptr<char[]> pPathBuffer(new char[PATH_MAX]); + lineEntry.GetFileSpec().GetPath(pPathBuffer.get(), PATH_MAX); ---------------- anton.kolesov wrote: > clayborg wrote: > > anton.kolesov wrote: > > > clayborg wrote: > > > > Confused as to why we are calling malloc and free here for pPathBuffer? > > > > Why not just: > > > > ``` > > > > char pPathBuffer[PATH_MAX]; > > > > ``` > > > I don't have a strong opinion on this, so to maintain consistency in the > > > code I'm trying to use what other code in lldb-mi uses in similar > > > situations - which is either unique_ptr or static local variable, but I > > > presume it was decided that second approach is not good. FWIW, If I were > > > to write code without regard of what is being done in the same project, > > > then I would never ever had a variable named "miValueConst5". > > I would just use a local variable on the stack as I suggested. static > > variables are not correct and should never be used in cases like this, so > > if you see other errors, might be a good idea to submit a patch and improve > > lldb-mi. I am all for consistency where it makes sense, but I am also for > > fixing issues when we see them. > But what is wrong with the approach of using std::unique_ptr<char[]> local > variable? That forces a call to malloc(...) and free(...). No need to involve allocations on the heap for such simple things Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59015/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59015 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
