================ @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +//===-- SBAddressRangeList.h ------------------------------------*- C++ -*-===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception +// +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +#ifndef LLDB_API_SBADDRESSRANGELIST_H +#define LLDB_API_SBADDRESSRANGELIST_H + +#include <memory> + +#include "lldb/API/SBDefines.h" + +class AddressRangeListImpl; + +namespace lldb { + +class LLDB_API SBAddressRangeList { +public: + SBAddressRangeList(); + + SBAddressRangeList(const lldb::SBAddressRangeList &rhs); + + ~SBAddressRangeList(); + + const lldb::SBAddressRangeList & + operator=(const lldb::SBAddressRangeList &rhs); + + uint32_t GetSize() const; + + void Clear(); + + bool GetAddressRangeAtIndex(uint64_t idx, SBAddressRange &addr_range); + + void Append(const lldb::SBAddressRange &addr_range); + + void Append(const lldb::SBAddressRangeList &addr_range_list); + +protected: + const AddressRangeListImpl *operator->() const; + + const AddressRangeListImpl &operator*() const; + +private: + friend class SBProcess; + + lldb_private::AddressRanges &ref(); + + const lldb_private::AddressRanges &ref() const; ---------------- bulbazord wrote:
To be clear, I'm objecting to these methods existing at all. I re-read the code and my comment and realized my argument didn't actually make a ton of sense, so allow me to clarify: I don't think we should be exposing `ref` at all here. I can understand having private methods to access the underlying `AddressRangeListImpl` (so that other classes can access it and mess with it, we do this all the time). What I don't think is a good idea is having a method to access implementation details of `AddressRangeListImpl` (namely, `AddressRanges`). Instead, I'm suggesting that we shuffle some code around to avoid exposing these at all. The problem that these solve is that other classes may want to privately modify the underlying `AddressRangeListImpl`, but don't have access to the class. All they have is a forward declaration (because they include this header and the implementation is in the cpp file). My suggestion would be to create a private header `AddressRangeListImpl.h` in `source/API`. Then any class that wants to modify the underlying `AddressRangeListImpl` can do so without needing to know that `AddressRangeListImpl` is implemented with `AddressRanges`. Normally I try not to push back against things here, but you cannot change or remove things from the SBAPI ever. Not even private methods like these (as I found out when I broke the ABI on Windows last year). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92014 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
