labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Awesome. In D66863#1649436 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66863#1649436>, @jingham wrote: > As a minor style thing, prior to this change CommandObjectThreadStepUntil > required a thread, but didn't require a process explicitly, because you can't > have a thread without a process. You also can't have a thread without a > target since you can't have a process without a target. But your change > means that if I specify that I require a thread I now ALSO have to require a > target explicitly or I will get an assert calling GetSelectedTarget. That > seems a little awkward to me (especially since you still don't have to > require a process...) It would be better if eCommandRequiresThread implied > eCommandRequiresProcess & eCommandRequiresTarget. That would keep these > definitions less noisy. This sounds like a good idea to me. ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectTarget.cpp:2615-2617 + "Set the load addresses for " + "one or more sections in a " + "target module.", ---------------- Another quirk of clang-format is that it will not re-merge strings that it has split previously. If you manually join these three strings into one, and then re-run clang-format, you'll probably end up with something slightly nicer... Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66863/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66863 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
