In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7271#115504, @zturner wrote:
> Not sure why this was ever a boolean in the first place instead of just > having the user specify it through the launch_flags which are already passed > into the function. Maybe that's why it's ignored, since the argument is > redunant because you can just create the launch_flags already to have > eLaunchFlagsStopAtEntry? Maybe it's true. Actually I'd like remove this argument but I afraid we can't do it. (I mean we can't change public API because we should support the backward support, right?). > Either way, I guess since the argument exists, might as well use it. Do you mean that it's accepted? Can you commit it if it's so? REPOSITORY rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D7271 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
