[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D67792: File::SetDescriptor() should require options

2019-09-23 Thread Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator via lldb-commits
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL372652: File::SetDescriptor() should require options (authored by JDevlieghere, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to commit: https://re

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D67792: File::SetDescriptor() should require options

2019-09-23 Thread Lawrence D'Anna via Phabricator via lldb-commits
lawrence_danna updated this revision to Diff 221390. lawrence_danna added a comment. added unit test Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67792/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67792 Files: lldb/include/lldb/Host/File.h lldb/source/Core

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D67792: File::SetDescriptor() should require options

2019-09-23 Thread Pavel Labath via Phabricator via lldb-commits
labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. This looks much better to me, but maybe you could add some unit tests for the use cases this fixes (I guess that's the use case of creating a `File` object with an fd, and the writing(?) to it

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D67792: File::SetDescriptor() should require options

2019-09-20 Thread Lawrence D'Anna via Phabricator via lldb-commits
lawrence_danna updated this revision to Diff 221093. lawrence_danna edited the summary of this revision. lawrence_danna added a comment. removed SetOptions() Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67792/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67792

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D67792: File::SetDescriptor() should require options

2019-09-20 Thread Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator via lldb-commits
JDevlieghere accepted this revision. JDevlieghere added a comment. Do we still need `SetOptions` after this? Are there cases where the value needs to change after construction? If not I would consider removing that function. Otherwise this LGTM if Pavel doesn't have any other concerns. Reposit