ayermolo added a comment. In D139379#4015569 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139379#4015569>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D139379#3972876 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139379#3972876>, @ayermolo > wrote: > >> In D139379#3972871 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139379#3972871>, @dblaikie >> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps the change to use accessors could be removed, now that you've used >>> it to find all the places that needed to be fixed up? (like just using it >>> for cleanup/temporary purposes, without needing to commit that API change?) >> >> I am not sure what other projects are using it, that I missed, or not in >> llvm-trunk, but are based of it. > > It's awkward to convolute the API to ensure a breakage - I think it's best to > leave it as-is, for the most part. I guess you needed the 32 bit accessors so > existing code doesn't become UB because of truncation to 32 bit? > > Could the code keep the existing member names, provide the wrappers without > turning the members into an array and needing named index constants, etc, at > least? (though even then, seems like there's more to it than needed) Thanks for circling back to this during holidays. :) Right, that was my original thought pattern. I am fully open to the idea that this is not the right approach. :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139379/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139379 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
