jasonmolenda added a comment. In D155905#4537036 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155905#4537036>, @clayborg wrote:
> > I like it the above approach with more enums for the high and low code/data. > Not sure if eTypeAny makes sense in the GetAddressMask(eTypeAny) scenario, > but I can see the use for a eTypeAll in case you wanted to set all of the > various address masks to zero though using SetAddressMask(eTypeAll, mask). We > would need to document this in the enum header file if we do add a eTypeAny > or eTypeAll. Yeah I agree SetAddressMask(eTypeAll) and GetAddressMask(eTypeAny) would be the clearest names, that was my first thought too. Maybe adding two enum names for the same value. And I'm a little worried about encouraging script writers to assume there is one mask active -- all of the targets I work on today have the same mask for code and data, but I could imagine some harvard architecture target that behaved differently (surely this is why Linux has two address masks), and scripts wouldn't work correctly then. But let's be honest, even if it's not easy they're probably going to pick one mask anyway. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D155905/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D155905 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
