aprantl marked 3 inline comments as done.
aprantl added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/ExpressionParser/Clang/IRForTarget.cpp:308
lldb::TargetSP target_sp(m_execution_unit.GetTarget());
- lldb_private::ExecutionContext exe_ctx(target_sp, true);
- llvm::Optional<uint64_t> bit_size =
- m_result_type.GetBitSize(exe_ctx.GetBestExecutionContextScope());
+ llvm::Optional<uint64_t> bit_size =
m_result_type.GetBitSize(target_sp.get());
if (!bit_size) {
----------------
shafik wrote:
> Is this equivalent to what was being done previously or is this better in
> some way?
The old code took a `TargetSP`, wrapped it in an `ExecutionContext`, and then
called `GetBestExecutionContextScope()`, which returns the `Target *`.
(`Target` inherits from `ExecutionContextScope`)
So the new code does exactly the same thing as the old code but it's much
shorter.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/TypeSystem/Clang/TypeSystemClang.cpp:4092
TypeSystemClang::GetArrayElementType(lldb::opaque_compiler_type_t type,
- uint64_t *stride) {
if (type) {
----------------
teemperor wrote:
> So we already have this dubious stride extra-output here, but now it also
> requires us to have an execution context parameter. I think we might as well
> just remove that parameter (in a separate patch).
Are you saying no one uses `stride`?
Not even a future Fortran lldb Plugin?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84267/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84267
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
