llunak added a comment. In D122974#3424654 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122974#3424654>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> I'm slightly concerned about the two hash values (the "full" hash vs the > single byte one). That's not something that was introduced in this patch, but > passing it around adds an opportunity to get it wrong. If this is aimed at me, then I don't know what you mean here. The single-byte hash is not passed around, it's used only locally in the two places that my change modifies and one more place where StringMap is not accessed (so no full hash needed there). I see no easy way for it to go wrong, and IMO the HashedStringRef struct would just complicate the code. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122974 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
