clayborg added a comment. In D138259#3938841 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D138259#3938841>, @aprantl wrote:
> Generally, I think this can be useful information. I don't have any better > suggestion, but I'd like to ask the room if we think that `<incomplete type>` > is a good message for the end users. (`Forward-declared type`, `type missing > from debug info`, ...?) "forward-declared type" might sound like it is normal for this type to be forward declared. "type missing from debug info" is better as it conveys exactly what is going on. 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
