[PATCH] Ctor init order fix.

Hi all,

My hope is to help with the linux port. Initially I would like to clean
up many of the compiler warnings I am seeing as a way to familiarize
myself with the basic code layout. Attached patch fixes a ctor
initialization order warning.

I am seeing many warnings, largely trivial. Am I correct in assuming
small patches like this one (file-by-file basis) are preferred?

Thanks,
Steve

init-order.patch (431 Bytes)

Hi all,

My hope is to help with the linux port. Initially I would like to clean
up many of the compiler warnings I am seeing as a way to familiarize
myself with the basic code layout. Attached patch fixes a ctor
initialization order warning.

Applied in r107623.

I am seeing many warnings, largely trivial. Am I correct in assuming
small patches like this one (file-by-file basis) are preferred?

Yes please!

Thanks!

-eric

For simple patches like this one, feel free to go ahead and just commit them!

Greg Clayton

Hi Greg,

Greg Clayton <gclayton@apple.com> writes:

For simple patches like this one, feel free to go ahead and just commit them!

I would if I had commit access! This is the first patch I have sent to
an LLVM related project.

Take care,
Steve

Ah! Keep sending us the patches then and we will apply them!

Greg Clayton

Hi Greg,

Unfortunately I originally responded to this mail using my work address,
which is not subscribed to the list. There will be a duplicate.

Greg Clayton <gclayton@apple.com> writes:

For simple patches like this one, feel free to go ahead and just commit them!

I would if I had commit access! This is the first patch I have sent to
an LLVM related project.

Take care,
Steve

Greg Clayton <gclayton@apple.com> writes:

Ah! Keep sending us the patches then and we will apply them!

Many thanks!

While I have your ear:

I am testing a patch that adds support for 64 bit elf reading and am
curious about coding conventions. Are there plans for the LLDB code
base to move towards the coding style used by LLVM/Clang? There is a
mail in the archives that suggests this may be the case. In particular,
should new files adopt the LLVM style or maintain consistency with the
rest of LLDB?

Also, will any of the lldb devs consider joining in on #llvm?

Thanks!
Steve

Greg Clayton <gclayton@apple.com> writes:

Ah! Keep sending us the patches then and we will apply them!

Many thanks!

While I have your ear:

I am testing a patch that adds support for 64 bit elf reading and am
curious about coding conventions. Are there plans for the LLDB code
base to move towards the coding style used by LLVM/Clang? There is a
mail in the archives that suggests this may be the case. In particular,
should new files adopt the LLVM style or maintain consistency with the
rest of LLDB?

We should maintain the consistency within LLDB. There are no plans to move the the LLVM/Clang coding conventions.

Also, will any of the lldb devs consider joining in on #llvm?

I will get on there ASAP so I can be available.

Great news on the 64 bit ELF support!

Greg Clayton