I tend to agree with Jim's point. I have sometimes put in things that
look like "dead/vestigial code", which I am actually either planning to
use later on, or actively using somewhere else. This is a quite
realistic scenario due to Swift support for LLDB existing in an entirely
separate
Not a big deal. Formal changes are fine, but even dead code in areas you don’t
work on might represent a work in progress, so it’s good to ask first. For
instance, Enrico and Greg originally had plans for “frame var” to be able to
print slices of arrays - that’s presumably the dead code
I admit I've been moving somewhat fast with these changes. The parameter
in question was only used in one logging statement, so the benefit did not
seem worth the added cost of complexity. But you're right, that involved a
judgement call on my part that I didn't vet first.
+Enrico Granata
I didn’t see this patch go up for review. The parameter you removed might have
been vestigial or might have been one that the owner of this code was planning
to do something with. Anyway, this seems to go beyond purely formal changes
and so should have been discussed. My apologies if I just
Author: zturner
Date: Fri Nov 18 11:55:04 2016
New Revision: 287354
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=287354=rev
Log:
Resubmit "Remove an output-parameter from Variable function".
The scanning algorithm had a few little subtleties that I
overlooked, but this patch should fix
