zequanwu added a comment. In D115308#3189261 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115308#3189261>, @labath wrote:
> 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 I reverted it back to first diff. But I can't use lldb-test for testing purpose, since there is a problem for lldb-test that inserting duplicate types into type list (https://reviews.llvm.org/D115308?vs=on&id=392599#3188183). ================ Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/SymbolFile/DWARF/x86/find-basic-type.cpp:40 // NAME-DAG: name = "foo", {{.*}} decl = find-basic-type.cpp:[[@LINE-1]] +// TYPES: name = "foo", size = 1, decl = find-basic-type.cpp:[[@LINE-2]] ---------------- labath wrote: > Does this actually check that the type is not emitted more than once? > > This is the reason why the other checks have the "Found <X> types" assertion > above. We currently don't have such output from --find=none, but feel free to > add something. > > It might also be better to make this a separate test, as the output also > includes things like `int` -- it would start to get messy if you included all > of that here, and this test was about testing something different anyway. It actually still emits types more than once using lldb-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
