mib marked 3 inline comments as done. mib added a comment. In D117071#3241300 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117071#3241300>, @labath wrote:
> Continuing the discussion from the other patch, I've made some comments about > who I think owns various objects going around in this patch. They should be > read in the control-flow order (which happens to coincide with how they > appear in the source code), not in the order the phabricator puts them at the > bottom of the page. I'd appreciate it if you could go through them and point > out any errors in my reasoning/assumptions. I've marked as done all of the comments that sounded good to me, and left some comments and questions myself. I think this patch can stay as is, as long as add support for owned references in `StructuredPythonObject`. I don't see any reason why this should not be allowed, but I might be missing something. If this solution sounds good to you, I can write a separate patch for that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D117071/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D117071 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
