jasonmolenda added a comment. In D100338#2689846 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100338#2689846>, @augusto2112 wrote:
> @jasonmolenda I've updated all the function calls to prefer the file cache > (except the one you pointed out), but I'm a little worried about this, since > I changed a lot of function calls. Maybe I could update the function > signature to `force_live_memory` (and default it to false), but keep all the > current calls having the same behavior (by negating whatever was passed > previously as `prefer_file_cache`). What do you think? I think that's a safe way to approach it. This will make it easier for new callers to do the right thing when they look at the method arguments, and we can go through and audit these more carefully by hand in the future. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100338/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100338 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
