kwk added a comment. In D77108#1951879 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77108#1951879>, @labath wrote:
> In D77108#1951610 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77108#1951610>, @aprantl wrote: > > > This is obviously good! Do you think that a similar error handling bug > > might exist in other cases that depend top-of-stack? > > > Most DW_OP cases check their stack, but it's quite possible that others were > missed too. It might be a nice cleanup to make a function like > (`getMinimalStackSize(op)`) and move this check up in front of the big > switch. That could not handle all operators, as for some of them, the value > is not statically known, but it would handle the vast majority of them. @labath I somewhat like that the logic for each `op` is close to the `case` statement. Creating the function that you suggested would separate this check out somewhere else and you would have to look at two places. At least for code review, the current solution is much clearer to me. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77108/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77108 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
