labath added a comment. I don't know whether the types should be uniqued at this level (obviously, they should be uniqued somewhere), but these are the thoughts that spring to mind:
- if this is a problem for lldb-test, then it would be preferable to come up with a solution that does not negatively impact the performance and memory consumption of the production code - it seems like this patch essentially implements its own copy of llvm::SetVector - It's unfortunate to have set-like semanticts in TypeList, when we already have a type called TypeSet. ================ Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/SymbolFile/DWARF/x86/dump-types.cpp:3-13 +// RUN: %clang %s -g -c -o %t.o --target=x86_64-pc-linux -gno-pubnames +// RUN: ld.lld %t.o -o %t +// RUN: lldb-test symbols --find=none %t | FileCheck %s + +// RUN: %clang %s -g -c -o %t --target=x86_64-apple-macosx +// RUN: lldb-test symbols --find=none %t | FileCheck %s + ---------------- It doesn't seem necessary to run all three accelerator flavours for this kind of a test. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115308/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115308 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
