Michael137 added a comment.
In D136935#3892082 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136935#3892082>, @labath wrote:
> The return type handling for function pointers is not correct. If it's hard
> to do, then maybe we could skip it (i suspect the original code didn't handle
> that either), but I have a feeling it might not be that hard, given that
> we're already able correctly extract the innermost argument types.
The slightly unfortunate bit is that if we wanted to collect all but the inner
function name into `m_return_type` we'd have to allocate a new string and do
some concatenation (or create some sort of `struct ReturnType { llvm::StringRef
LHS, RHS }`). Not too difficult to implement AFAICT but not sure we need to
support this at the moment. Functions that have a function return type encoded
in the mangled name currently don't format correctly so not supporting it
wouldn't regress that.
Either way a great test-case to add
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136935/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136935
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
