kastiglione added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Language/CPlusPlus/LibCxx.cpp:225
if (valobj_sp)
+ SyntheticChildrenFrontEnd(*valobj_sp);
Update();
----------------
Michael137 wrote:
> Michael137 wrote:
> > Michael137 wrote:
> > > this won't initialise the parent constructor though will it? Just creates
> > > a temporary and immediately destructs it? You might need to put it back
> > > into the initialiser list and use a ternary
> > Oh but `SyntheticChildrenFrontEnd` seems to always take a reference. The
> > interfaces seem to be a little mismatched
> Perhaps the null-check in the constructor is just redundant and should
> actually be an assert.
>
> @jingham might know more about the assumptions here
@xgupta reiterating Michael's point, I think this change results in
mis-construction. Have you run the test suite, I would expect some failures
with this change.
I agree that this should be an assert. The other option would be to change the
constructor's signature, using a `lldb::ValueObject &` instead of
`lldb::ValueObjectSP`, which puts the onus on callers to handle any null-ness.
Are we aware of any callers passing null?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142341/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D142341
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
