> On Mar 29, 2017, at 2:06 AM, Tamas Berghammer via Phabricator > <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > tberghammer added a comment. > > SBValue::SetName is not part of the SB API (what is the right decision IMO as > an SBValue should be mostly immutable) so this issue doesn't effect it. I > looked through the code in examples/synthetic/gnu_libstdcpp.py and it is > always using one of the SBValue::Create* method to produce new SBValue what > will create a new value object one way or the other. Considering that nobody > complained about the missing SetName method at the SB API level I don't see a > big need for exposing the Clone method there. At the same line if > SetName/Clone isn't part of the SB API then I think we shouldn't document it > at the webpage.
Seems like vending one of the actual backing objects as a synthetic object is a reasonable thing to do (it's what you are doing internally). But if we don't allow a way to do that currently, then there's no reason to add one. Jim > > (I will upload a fix for the spelling errors later) > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D31371 > > > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
