I think we discussed this before, but we need an informational error object. IIRC, the llvm::Error has to be checked. But for instance if you ask a value object to evaluate itself, but you've moved to a section of code where the variable has no location, then evaluating that value will result in an error. But that isn't an error the value object code needs to do anything about. And it might go all the way up through the SB & Python API's before it's appropriate to check the error.
IIRC, the llvm::Error is one of those "you have to check it or you get smacked by the compiler" dealies. That's appropriate for some of our uses of Error, but not all. Jim > On Jan 31, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator via lldb-commits > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > zturner added a comment. > >> Move Error from Core -> Utility > > Also, I almost forgot. > > Long term: Delete and use `llvm::Error` > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D29359 > > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-commits mailing list > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
