tammela marked an inline comment as done. tammela added a comment. In D91508#2413582 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91508#2413582>, @labath wrote:
> 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... I thought that too, but internally it's a naked call to `lua_newuserdata()` which might throw in case of a memory error. > 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. Fair enough. Will remove those. Since this seems to be a fact of life for LLVM, perhaps wrapping potential memory errors turns out to be just bloat. If that's the case, then the wrapping in `PushSBClass` is not needed and the `abort()` call that Lua does is honest. 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
