bulbazord added a comment.
I'm curious to know why you don't try and implement some kind of
`TypeSystemRust`? I assume it's going to be a lengthy process, but eventually
you (or somebody else) is going to want to implement a `TypeSystemRust` in some
form and they'll have to revisit all of rust-specific things we've tacked onto
various parts of LLDB (e.g. this functionality with DWARFASTParserClang). I
suppose the question I'm trying to answer is "How much do we add to LLDB before
actually adding proper rust support?"
I was also curious about the test. I'm not sure how the test is supposed to
work here, is the rust source file actually built or is that just to show how
the yaml file was generated? There's no rust support in our testing
infrastructure AFAICT so I assume this just makes sure that something already
generated doesn't get broken in the future.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFASTParserClang.cpp:2526-2527
+ConstString VariantMember::GetName() const {
+ return ConstString(this->variant_name);
+}
----------------
Store `variant_name` as a ConstString instead of creating one each time.
Creating a `ConstString` (even if the string is in the StringPool) has a
non-trivial creation cost.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFASTParserClang.cpp:2530
+
+bool VariantMember::IsDefault() const { return !discr_value.has_value(); }
+
----------------
`return !discr_value;`
`has_value` does the same thing as `operator bool` for `std::optional`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149213/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149213
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
