Michael137 wrote: For now i think I'll probably i'll reset the formatters in the teardown hook, but Jim's comment on https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110767 might be a good follow-up;
> The narrowest solution is that when you go to cache a type name -> formatter > pair, you should first check whether the type name is generic. If it is, > then you can't guarantee it will resolve to the same base type in the future, > so you should not cache it. IIUC, Michael started down this path but found > there wasn't a way to tell straightforwardly whether a type was generic. > Since this is just an optimization, we should first prove to ourselves that > failing to put one of these type names in the exact matches really makes > enough difference to bother with a complex solution. If the gains are some > but not huge, some boneheaded solution like never caching anything where the > from type has a '<' and a '>' is probably sufficient. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147253 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
