royitaqi wrote: Gentle ping to make progress on this PR. :)
@JDevlieghere , could you see [my rely to your comment](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89868#discussion_r1588655287) about why I think why I think signed int makes sense for `typedef int destroy_callback_token_t`? I have no strong opinion. If you still think it should be unsigned, I can update the PR. @JDevlieghere and @bulbazord , about the necessity of thread safety, could you see if [my proposal](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89868#discussion_r1588661446) is agreeable? TL;DR: currently the class isn't thread safe; let's skip thread safety in this PR; we can add it to the class in one go when in the future the class is decided to be thread safe. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89868 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
