[lldb][windows] fix copying instead of using a reference of STARTUPINFOW

[charles-zablit]

This patch fixes a implicit copy instead of using a reference to a STARTUPINFOW instance.

This is a followup to #170301.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb

Author: Charles Zablit (charles-zablit)

Changes

This patch fixes a implicit copy instead of using a reference to a STARTUPINFOW instance.

This is a followup to #170301.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/170653.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) lldb/source/Host/windows/ProcessLauncherWindows.cpp (+1-1)

diff --git a/lldb/source/Host/windows/ProcessLauncherWindows.cpp b/lldb/source/Host/windows/ProcessLauncherWindows.cpp
index 2f78ef80f385e..f22a5ffefc19a 100644
--- a/lldb/source/Host/windows/ProcessLauncherWindows.cpp
+++ b/lldb/source/Host/windows/ProcessLauncherWindows.cpp
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ llvm::ErrorOr<std::vector<HANDLE>> ProcessLauncherWindows::GetInheritedHandles(
     const ProcessLaunchInfo &launch_info, STARTUPINFOEXW &startupinfoex,
     HANDLE stdout_handle, HANDLE stderr_handle, HANDLE stdin_handle) {
   std::vector<HANDLE> inherited_handles;
-  STARTUPINFOW startupinfo = startupinfoex.StartupInfo;
+  STARTUPINFOW &startupinfo = startupinfoex.StartupInfo;
 
   startupinfo.hStdError =
       stderr_handle ? stderr_handle : GetStdHandle(STD_ERROR_HANDLE);

[dzhidzhoev]

Thank you!

[compnerd]

Would it make more sense to just reference the startupinfoex.StartupInfo locally? It is a bit unobvious that you are intending to mutate that member. Alternatively, we could simply take a STARTUPINFOW & instead of STARTUPINFOEXW & in the parameter list.

[charles-zablit]

It is a bit unobvious that you are intending to mutate that member.

For what it's worth, we are doing something similar here: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/170653/files#diff-e88204c0b3183c22166588028caaa5bc946c63fc9e90af696f60603325b1d08dR91

Alternatively, we could simply take a STARTUPINFOW & instead of STARTUPINFOEXW & in the parameter list.

STARTUPINFOEXW &startupinfoex is used in that function, we have to pass it as well.

Alternatively, we could simply take a STARTUPINFOW & instead of STARTUPINFOEXW & in the parameter list.

Happy to do that, it's going to increase verbosity a bit, but that's fine I think.

[charles-zablit]

Merging this to fix the bots ASAP, I will open up a follow up PR to address #170653 (review).

[charles-zablit]

@compnerd I opened #170669 as a follow up.