bulbazord added a comment. In D109928#3005085 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109928#3005085>, @clayborg wrote:
> Looks fine to me. I am assuming the full test suite passes with this change > in place? It didn't introduce any new test failures on any of my machines. ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Expression/IRExecutionUnit.cpp:717 + if (ConstString best_alternate_mangled_name = + FindBestAlternateMangledName(demangled, sc)) + CPP_names.push_back(best_alternate_mangled_name); ---------------- clayborg wrote: > Seems like we should be passing in the "Mangled" object into > "FindBestAlternateMangledName" in case it has extra information. For example > constructors and destructors have many different types (in charge, not in > charge, etc). Yes, I agree. I plan on tackling that function next. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109928/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109928 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
