JDevlieghere accepted this revision. JDevlieghere added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D153626#4444096 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153626#4444096>, @DavidSpickett wrote: > This assumes that the usual use case is: > > - Make a small vector. > - Resize it to what you need. > - Use the content like an array. > > Every case I found matched that but still, it's not the safest API ever. Yeah, I don't see how we can make this any safer without introducing something like the DataExtractor but for writing rather than reading, which would be overkill, and if we care about the cost of heap allocations, probably too slow as well. The current approach doesn't seem any less safe than the buffer we had before so I think it's fine. In D153626#4444096 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153626#4444096>, @DavidSpickett wrote: > I see Green Dragon runs an lldb sanitizers bot, so my plan would be to rely > on that to catch any tricky issues prior to any SME changes going in. The sanitized bot on GreenDragon runs on Intel and I assume the "risky' changes only apply to arm64 as that's the only architecture that needs to scale beyond the default 256? Anyway I haven't seen the leaks issue you've mentioned locally so I'm happy to run a sanitized build on arm64. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153626/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153626 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
