Looks good. On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Michael Sartain <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Greg Clayton <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > Got it - I just wanted to understand the reasoning. I've switched over, > re-ran the tests, and posted the new patch here. Please let me know if this > looks ok when you get a chance and I'll commit. > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1145 > > Thanks for info Greg. > -Mike _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
