jingham accepted this revision. jingham added inline comments. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================ Comment at: source/Utility/CompletionRequest.cpp:79 + // Add the completion if we haven't seen the same value before. + if (m_added_values.insert(r.GetUniqueKey()).second) + m_results.push_back(r); ---------------- teemperor wrote: > jingham wrote: > > JDevlieghere wrote: > > > Do you think there's any value in in checking the description? For > > > example, if the description was empty for the existing value but a > > > description is provided for the duplicate? > > This seems reasonable. For instance, for process attach we might want to > > do something like: > > > > (lldb) process attach -n Foo<TAB> > > Foo - pid 123 > > Foo - pid 234 > > FooBar - pid 345 > > > > But then the two Foo's would have the same unique key and you would only > > print one. > Also, when providing for example completions for the expression command, we > would have the same function name with different argument lists. E.g. > ``` > foo( -- int foo(int, int) > foo( -- int foo(double, double) > ``` I just missed that after adding the number of the completion, you then append the description to make the key. My bad. Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://reviews.llvm.org/D51175 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
