labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
The slight problem here is that we don't know which libc++ version we are going to build with, so this will then fail for people still using the old one. However, choosing the latest libc++ version here seems like the right thing to do. The background here is that we don't have a good way of testing that our pretty-printers behave sensibly when the structures they are interpreting get corrupted. This test was my attempt at improving that situation, but it's not without its shortfalls. The other thing I tried a while back when writing the std::tuple formatter was to re-create a faithful mock of the class in the test. The advantage there would be that we are not tied to the libc++ version, and we would be even able to test formatting of different versions simultaneously. However, writing the mock proved to be so tedious, that I just gave up on the idea. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58273/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58273 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
