teemperor added a comment.
This seems reasonable to me, but I'll leave this open for a while in case
someone that knows more about Rust mangling shows up. Otherwise I'll accept
this next week.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Core/Mangled.cpp:213
+ else
+ LLDB_LOGF(log, "demangled rustv0: %s -> error: failed to demangle", M);
+ }
----------------
Please use LLDB_LOG in new code: `LLDB_LOG(log, "demangled rustv0: {0} ->
\"{1}\"", M, demangled_cstr);` (same in the line below).
(The code above just didn't get updated yet)
================
Comment at: lldb/unittests/Core/MangledTest.cpp:72
+
+ EXPECT_STREQ("", TheDemangled.GetCString());
+}
----------------
Could you do me a favour and change your test functions to LLDB's code style,
so `mangled_name` as a variable name instead of `MangledName` and so on.
I'm aware the rest of the file is already using LLVM code style, but I think
that's was just an oversight. I'll probably change the code style in this file
to LLDB's and it would keep the git history a bit simpler.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104054/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104054
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
