On Jul 15, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Michael Sartain <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Greg Clayton <[email protected]> wrote: > You might think about storing the breakpoint ID instead of a shared pointer > to the breakpoint. > > > Can I ask why? There should only be one of these I believe. It really shouldn't matter really. Just to make sure no strong reference to a breakpoint stays around longer than required. > I think ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp does something similar with > m_next_branch_bp_sp. Does that make sense to switch to IDs as well? I can see the thread plans doing this because they will be accessing the breakpoint as soon as you stop. For the dynamic loaders, we tend to create the breakpoint and then the callback will be called automatically, so we aren't digging up the breakpoint each time we hit it. This doesn't need to be done, this is just out the MacOSX dynamic loader does it. Greg _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
