bulbazord added a comment.
I like the idea! Could be a little cleaner imo, but shouldn't be a blocker if
others don't think so.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Core/Module.h:62
+/// because it must be forward-declared in ModuleList.h.
+struct ModuleFunctionOptions {
+ /// Include the symbol table.
----------------
nit: Maybe a name like `ModuleFunctionSearchOptions`? A bit more verbose but I
wasn't sure what `ModuleFunctionOptions` meant at first.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/API/SBModule.cpp:401-403
+ ModuleFunctionOptions function_options;
+ function_options.include_symbols = true;
+ function_options.include_inlines = true;
----------------
nit: IMO this looks cleaner, but no big deal:
```
ModuleFunctionOptions function_options = { .include_symbols = true,
.include_inlines = true };
```
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107295/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107295
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
