aprantl added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Core/Mangled.cpp:106
+
+ return Mangled::eManglingSchemeNone;
+}
----------------
shafik wrote:
> aprantl wrote:
> > You don't need to fix this all at once, but I think it would be even better
> > if this function did something like
> > ```
> > for each language plugin {
> > if (mangling_scheme = plugin.isMangledName(...)
> > ...
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > I.e., the plugins should be the ones that know about the mangling details.
> There is an old comment akin to that in `IsCPPMangledName`. I did not want to
> stray too far off into refactoring in this PR.
I think IsCPPMangledName should be called IsMangledName and every language
plugin should define one. The fact that you forgot to make the same bugfix in
CPlusPlusLanguage::IsCPPMangledName should be motivation enough to not
implement the same functionality in two places :-)
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Core/Mangled.cpp:36
+static inline bool cstring_is_mangled(llvm::StringRef s) {
+ return Mangled::GetManglingScheme(s) != Mangled::eManglingSchemeNone;
}
----------------
I was going to say, the function name doesn't make sense any more, but really
we probably don't need this function at all, right?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69738/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69738
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
