teemperor accepted this revision.
teemperor added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks for looking into this. I didn't get around to fix that myself yet. Out
of curiosity, how did you get this test to fail? When I apply just your changes
to the test (without the TypeSystemClang changes) then the test still passed in
my build with `LLVM_USE_SANITIZER:STRING=Address;Undefined` ?
Otherwise this LGTM and is obviously better than just passing in a nullptr.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Symbol/TypeSystemClang.cpp:1283
+ identifier_info, template_param_type, parameter_pack,
+ ast.getTrivialTypeSourceInfo(template_param_type)));
} else {
----------------
shafik wrote:
> There is another `push_back` with a `nullptr` a little further down. Is that
> one ok?
I would say we no. Passing some valid type source info seems always better than
a nullptr. I made D73946 for that
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73808/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73808
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
