================
@@ -45,6 +45,36 @@ SBValue instance which interprets the value object as
representing the head of a
linked list."
) lldb::SBValue;
+%feature("docstring", "
+Returns true if the SBValue holds any useful state
+and false otherwise.
+IsValid is a very weak API, lldb will only return
+invalid SBValues if it has no useful information
+about the SBValue.
+The two main ways you will end up with an invalid
+SBValue are:
+1) default constructed SBValues are not valid.
+2) SBValues that have outlived their SBTarget are
+no longer valid since its not safe to ask them
----------------
jimingham wrote:
Note that I changed the phrasing to say "it WOULD not be safe. Instead, lldb
will return default constructed..." That to me says "it isn't safe for lldb to
ask questions of objects that depend on other objects that have been deleted,
so we don't"... I don't think I need to explain why it wouldn't be safe for
lldb to ask these questions, though? That seems obvious.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94007
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
