Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D31371: Stop calling ValueObject::SetName from synthetic child providers

Thanks. Jim > On Mar 30, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Tamas Berghammer wrote: > > Created bug for exposing ValueObject::Clone as SB API: > http://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32477 > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:04 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator >

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D31371: Stop calling ValueObject::SetName from synthetic child providers

Created bug for exposing ValueObject::Clone as SB API: http://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32477 On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:04 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > jingham accepted this revision. > jingham added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D31371: Stop calling ValueObject::SetName from synthetic child providers

I see. Might be worth filing an enhancement request to expose Clone so you can do this in a Python synthetic child provider. But there's no reason that lack should block this change. Jim > On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Tamas Berghammer wrote: > > It is possible to

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D31371: Stop calling ValueObject::SetName from synthetic child providers

It is possible to vend one of the actual backing object as a synthetic child using the SB API. What is not possible from the SB API at the moment (we might want to fix it) is to vend one of the actual backing object with a different name then the underlying object itself. You can still say that

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D31371: Stop calling ValueObject::SetName from synthetic child providers

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 2:06 AM, Tamas Berghammer via Phabricator > wrote: > > tberghammer added a comment. > > SBValue::SetName is not part of the SB API (what is the right decision IMO as > an SBValue should be mostly immutable) so this issue doesn't effect it. I >