llunak added a comment. In D122974#3586352 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122974#3586352>, @dblaikie wrote:
> ^ I think it's still worthwhile/necessary to separate LLDB's use case/hashing > algorithm choice from LLVM's so LLVM's code can be changed to be more change > resilient in a way that LLDB's cannot (eg: random seeds will never be usable > by LLDB but may be for LLVM). Possibly, but that can be done in another patch. Preferably by somebody who has an actual use case for it. > Fair enough - probably good to have some commentary in the test cases that > makes it really clear that if the test needs to be updated then the version > needs to be updated. (is that patch already posted? Could you link to that > comment from this review?) Already done. D124704 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124704> , https://reviews.llvm.org/D124704#change-yXGqjEgMMr0u . 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
