jingham added a comment. In D115926#3199520 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115926#3199520>, @siger-young wrote:
> In D115926#3199496 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115926#3199496>, @labath wrote: > >> I don't know if you've seen this but we have some description of it here >> https://lldb.llvm.org/design/sbapi.html. The gist of it is: >> >> - be backward compatible >> - don't depend on other stuff > > Thanks, I got it. I will stick to these rules. It's fine to add an API if we decide the one we had originally was unwieldily. I have no idea why one of us (probably me) thought breakpoint callbacks needed a process & thread. ================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBBreakpointOptionCommon.h:17 +namespace lldb { +struct CallbackData { + SBBreakpointHitCallback callback; ---------------- It's odd to have something called lldb::CallbackData, but have it be specific to breakpoints. We probably need to do the same thing for Watchpoints, for instance, but either there should be a common class for both watchpoints, or they should be distinguishable by name. And other things might have callbacks. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115926/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115926 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
