clayborg wrote: > > Looking good. One question: do we want to switch to using a > > `std::optional<uint64_t>` instead of using a `uint64_t` with a default > > value of UINT32_MAX? We should either use the optional or switch everything > > except for the public API over to use `UINT64_MAX` > > The entire point of this patch series is to prepare for a final patch that > will change the return value to `llvm::Expected<uint64_t>` :-)
I was suggesting this for the input parameters only. But we can do this later. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83501 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
