looks good! Feel free to commit whenever, I'd definitely recommend posting
a PSA on cfe-dev@ (after you commit) so that people know about it. You
might also get some useful ideas for improvements that way too.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:52 PM Don Hinton wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:44 PM,
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:18 PM Don Hinton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Zachary Turner
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems fine, it would be nice if the workflow could be improved a little
>>> bit so that all you have to do is say
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:18 PM Don Hinton wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Zachary Turner
> wrote:
>
>> Seems fine, it would be nice if the workflow could be improved a little
>> bit so that all you have to do is say `clangdiag break
>> —error=“-Wcovered-switch”` or something . I think
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> Seems fine, it would be nice if the workflow could be improved a little
> bit so that all you have to do is say `clangdiag break
> —error=“-Wcovered-switch”` or something . I think that gives the most
> intuitive usage for people, even it’s
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Greg Clayton via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> clayborg added a comment.
>
> Each lldb.SBValue has accessors for the stuff in an execution context:
>
> ``
>
> lldb::SBTarget GetTarget();
> lldb::SBProcess GetProcess();
> lldb::SBThread GetT
Seems fine, it would be nice if the workflow could be improved a little bit
so that all you have to do is say `clangdiag break
—error=“-Wcovered-switch”` or something . I think that gives the most
intuitive usage for people, even it’s a bit harder to implement.
I also think user shouldn’t really h
