labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D136935#3892336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136935#3892336>, @Michael137 wrote: > 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. Wdyt? Sounds good. Ship it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D136935/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D136935 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
