aprantl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBType.h:212 + /// Returns true for types that were incomplete in the debug information but + /// should have been a complete. When the debugger constructs types, we must + /// have enough information to reconstruct a type in a language specific AST ---------------- a complete? (missing word) ================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBType.h:223 + /// of the debug information in a debug session, possibly even in another + /// executable or shared library's debug information. If we require a full + /// definition for a type but we can't find ony, we must forcefully complete ---------------- Could you replace all instances of "we" with something more concrete? It sounds like this paragraph really describes behaviors of TypeSystemClang? ================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBType.h:237 + /// need to be forcefully completed + bool IsTypeForcefullyCompleted(); + ---------------- Why not `IsIncomplete()`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138259/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138259 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
