On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:42 PM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
> Clang only. But I don’t think we can ever replace it with an assert, > debug info is basically user input, so we have to be able to handle every > manner of malformed input. In fact, when this bug is fixed in clang, i > will probably try to keep a test case around that manually generates the > bad debug info using llvm-mc or something, just to make sure it will not > break. Because, for example, someone could be debugging a program that was > built with the buggy compiler version. > Yes, I agree now. > I think we need to support both. Certain pieces of information are not > represented in the mangling at all, so if we rely purely on the mangling we > will never be able to perfectly reconstruct the DeclContext hierarchy. So > I think each approach by itself would be imperfect, but combined it will be > very good. > Ok, then LGTM, thanks! -- Aleksandr Urakov Software Developer JetBrains http://www.jetbrains.com The Drive to Develop
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
