Jlalond wrote: > I see you ended up not using the fallible_iterator thing in the end. I'm sort > of ok with that, though I think it'd be better to do it that way, as we > wouldn't need the upfront array bounds check and we could return partial data > where it made sense,
@labath for this I need to lean on your expertise. When writing this up it seemed more logical to me to verify the array first when constructing the iterator facade. I do see value in being able to return the partial 'good' data, while simultaneously being unsure if returning some data if any of the descriptors point out of bounds. This seems like a correctness problem to me for the MemoryList, but I don't want to decrease the testability of this class, so I'll make another pass at failable_iterator https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101272 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
