clayborg wrote:
> > ```
> > SBWatchpoint SBTarget::WatchpointCreateByAddress(addr_t address, size_t
> > size, uint32_t access_flags, SBError &error);
> > ```
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > with `eWatchpointAccess{Read,Write,Modify}` flags defined.
>
> @bulbazord what do you think about this suggestion? Would you still prefer an
> Options class?
If we are going to add an overload I would suggest keeping with just adding a
"bool modify" as it is more clear an usable. The options does seem like
overkill for just one bool I admit, it just depends on what kind of options we
might want to watchpoints in the future. If this is the last change to
watchpoints, then add a new API. If we think we will add more options at some
point (try to think if the new fancy watchpoints Jason is about to add support
for might need more options?) then do the Options class route.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66308
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
