search for: filecoff

...get the error_code and/or error string. > My intuition is the opposite here. If you add the error information to the lld::File base class then leads you to write the constructor for FileFoo() which does all the parsing, and if it runs into a problem, just sets the error ivar and returns (your FileCOFF is an example of that). The problem this leads to is half constructed objects. That can trip up a client which might accidentally call methods on the half constructed object other than the error getting methods. It also means the destructor has to be careful when tearing down the half construct...

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> >>>

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >> >>> In lld we have a Reader class which is a factory that takes .o file(s) and produces an in memory lld::File object(s).  But in doing so, there could be I/O errors (file not readable)

On Jun 16, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > >> In lld we have a Reader class which is a factory that takes .o file(s) and produces an in memory lld::File object(s). But in doing so, there could be I/O errors (file not readable) or file may be malformed. We are also using C++11 in lld, so we use std::unique_ptr for managing