labath added a comment. In D91508#2412510 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91508#2412510>, @tammela wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate? > > Sure, it's was just a nod to your previous comment about that running > callbacks (C++ lambdas) inside a `pcall` is a dangerous API. Although > possible, it requires that the developer be very cautious about implicit > throws. Right. That's why I'd like to have good wrappers, which make it easy to do the right thing, and hard to do the wrong one. I don't think we're quite there yet, but before I comment on the API, I want to understand one other thing. I am puzzled by all the wrapping that's happening inside the `PushSBClass` functions. What is that protecting us from? I would hope that pushing a swig wrapper on the stack is a safe operation... > The Lua implementation guarantees at least 20 stack slots when the > `lua_State` is created so I've added the stack checks for sanity rather than > necessity. So, IIUC, this can only fail if we are running out of memory? If that's the case, then I would remove these checks, as (for better or worse) llvm is not robust against memory allocation errors, and they add a fair amount of cruft to the code. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91508/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91508 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
