medismailben wrote:
> Depends on #71456.
>
> I considered an alternative where we don't store the `Checksum` in the
> `FileSpec` but create a new `SupportFile` class that wraps a `Checksum` and a
> `FileSpec`. The reason I didn't got with this approach is because of the
> `FileSpecList`. The latter has helper functions that are used in the context
> of "support files" which would have to duplicated in a `SupportFileList` and
> I wasn't sure we weren't vending a `FileSpecList` through the SB API that
> would now become a `SupportFileList`.
>
> A checksum is 16 bytes. Please let me know if you think that the overhead of
> that is too much and outweighs the churn and code duplication to adopt a
> `SupportFile` and `SupportFileList`.
I personally like the current implementation, I think it makes sense to have
the `Checksum` in the `FileSpec`, I don't see the point of making new
`SupportFile{,List}` classes if it's just wrapping a `FileSpec` and its
`Checksum`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71457
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
