> On Nov 14, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> If the swap is correct, then wouldn't we also need to swap the variable list?
That would make things more symmetrical, though all your doing is skipping the
shared pointer ref count manipulations so it isn't terribly important.
Jim
>
Yea, sorry, some of my local changes were mixed in there. But the original
code that you posted above still has the same issue.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM Jason Molenda wrote:
> For reference, the original code that Greg wrote in r112301 was
>
> +if (!m_disassembly.GetString().empty())
For reference, the original code that Greg wrote in r112301 was
+if (!m_disassembly.GetString().empty())
+m_disassembly.GetString().swap (m_disassembly.GetString());
> On Nov 14, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> If the swap is correct, then wouldn't we also need to swa
If the swap is correct, then wouldn't we also need to swap the variable
list?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:58 AM Jim Ingham wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > I was going through doing some routine StringRef changes and
Looks incorrect to me. It was introduced with this change. Adding Greg.
Author: Greg Clayton
Date: Fri Aug 27 21:47:54 2010 +
Made it so we update the current frames from the previous frames by doing
STL
swaps on the variable list, value object list, and disassembly. This avoid
> On Nov 13, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> I was going through doing some routine StringRef changes and I ran across
> this function:
>
> std::lock_guard guard(m_mutex);
> assert(GetStackID() ==
> prev_frame.GetStackID()); // TODO: remove this after s
