mgorny added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/API/SBThread.cpp:1326-1334
+ if (!process.IsValid()) {
+ error.SetErrorString("no process");
+ return value;
+ }
+ SBTarget target = process.GetTarget();
+ if (!target.IsValid()) {
+ error.SetErrorString("unable to get target");
----------------
labath wrote:
> It should be fine to chain these, relying on the fact that the SB methods on
> an empty object will return another empty object.
I suppose I could avoid `process` and switch to getting byte order from target
but tbh I think the explicit error message for lack of process is worth keeping
the split.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118055/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118055
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
