Michael137 added a comment. In D123319#3682929 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3682929>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D123319#3681884 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3681884>, @Michael137 > wrote: > >> In D123319#3680169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3680169>, @aprantl >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry for the silence — I was out on vacation. >>> >>> @Michael137 has recently started looking into improving support for C++ >>> lambdas in LLDB. >>> Michael, would you be interested in taking a fresh look at this and figure >>> out what the requirements for LLDB are here and how to answer the questions >>> @dblaikie raised specifically? >> >> Sure will have a look at what's missing from >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D105564 and whether these clang changes are indeed >> necessary > > Ah, the plan is to fix lldb and then revert this clang patch? At least will want to see why this wasn't easy to fix on the LLDB side and whether it ties in to some of the other lambda bugs floating around Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
