jarin added a comment. In D80254#2047982 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80254#2047982>, @clayborg wrote:
> This looks good, thanks for subscribing me. We need to have GetNumChildren > and GetChildAtIndex agreeing on things and we definitely shouldn't be walking > more than on pointer recursively. My only question is do we need helper > functions added to TypeSystemClang to avoid this issue since we have > GetNumChildren and GetChildAtIndex doing things differently? Some function > both could/should be calling so that things can't get out of sync? Yeah, that is what I suggested in the patch's summary. Do you want to block landing the fix until the refactoring is done? In my experience, the discussions about such refactorings can take weeks, I am not sure if I can commit to doing that. I am happy to put out a separate patch for the refactoring once this one is landed. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80254/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80254 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
