JDevlieghere added a comment. In D56822#1376770 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56822#1376770>, @labath wrote:
> So, if I understand this correctly, a constructor like `SBFoo::SBFoo(){}` > will not be considered for macroization because it's empty? That doesn't > sound right to me. Even an empty constructor has a side effect of > constructing the object, which is something that I would expect to see > recorded in the trace file. Is there some reason why it is hard/impossible to > insert macros into these kinds of functions? If so, it may be worth just > warning the user about their existence. > > A function with an empty body probably doesn't do anything interesting, so it > may be possible to skip recording those, but I think it would make sense to > record them nonetheless. Ugh, I was confusing empty bodies with methods without a body (e.g. declarations). Empty bodies are definitely handled! I'll update the comment. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56822/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56822 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits