friss added inline comments.
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/LanguageRuntime/CPlusPlus/CPPLanguageRuntime.cpp:274
+ vtable_first_entry_resolved.CalculateSymbolContextCompileUnit();
+ llvm::StringRef name_to_use = func_to_match;
+ bool is_lambda = contains_lambda_identifier(name_to_use);
----------------
Why a new variable?
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/LanguageRuntime/CPlusPlus/CPPLanguageRuntime.cpp:287
+ size_t pos = llvm::StringRef::npos;
+ pos = name_to_use.find("::operator");
+
----------------
Doesn't matter too much for lambdas, but shouldn't this be "operator()" ?
Is this guaranteed to return a valid index? Should we assert on it?
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/LanguageRuntime/CPlusPlus/CPPLanguageRuntime.cpp:293
+ if (name.startswith(sliced_name) && name.contains("operator"))
+ if (name.contains("$_") || name.contains("'lambda'"))
+ return true;
----------------
this is basically is_lambda. As we filter it above, why do we need this test?
================
Comment at: source/Symbol/CompileUnit.cpp:101
+ // m_functions_by_uid is filled in lazily but we need all the entries.
+ symbol_file->ParseFunctions(*this);
+
----------------
This seems pretty expensive. Can we Force the parsing of the functions just in
the compiler unit rather than the whole symbol file? If you are using a dSYM,
then this is going to load all the debug information in one go.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69913/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69913
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
