mib added a comment. In D116162#3211322 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116162#3211322>, @labath wrote:
> This isn't a feature I would want advertise too broadly, or add special APIs > to support it. The way I see it, if a user needs to check if an object has > been cleared, something has gone wrong already. So I'd rather do something to > discourage this use case instead of providing more support for it. Crashing > is definitely discouraging, but maybe a bit too extreme. If there was a > simple way to throw an exception in this case, then I think that would be a > good compromise. > > The reason I started looking into all of this is because of a bug report > where the user wanted to stash a debugger object and access it later (which > is a semi-reasonable thing to do, I'd say). I haven't heard of anybody trying > to store SBCommandReturnObjects, nor I intend to start encouraging that. The > only reason I wrote this patch is to tie up loose ends. > >> Having the object reseted by SWIG if it goes out-of-scope could collide with >> this approach. What do you think ? > > I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I don't consider this behavior as > set in stone. If we come up with a different/better way to handle this, then > we can just change this code. Sounds good ! I don't have any other objection with this patch then. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116162/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116162 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
