We actually use it in some places, but it's limited. Before I did that was when I added the PathSyntax to FileSpec which essentially servers the same purpose. We could in theory drop PathSyntax now that LLVM supports all of the same functionality. It's a pretty invasive refactor though which I never had time to do.
I think I might have tried to replace some of the low level functions in FileSpec with the LLVM equivalents and gotten a few test failures, but I didn't have time to investigate. It would be a worthwhile experiment for someone to try again if they have some cycles. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:28 AM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:19 AM Jim Ingham via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The last time I looked at the llvm functions they only support the path > syntax of the llvm host, which won't do for lldb. But maybe they have > gotten more general recently? > > > > > > Yes in fact I was the one who updated them to make them more general. > You can now specify an enumeration parameter which will cause the algorithm > to treat paths as either windows, posix, or whatever the host is. > > If I were guessing, I would have guessed that! > > Since you probably know how the llvm functions work better than most, were > there technical reasons why, having done the work on the llvm side, you > didn't adopt them in lldb? Or was it just a matter of time? > > Jim > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
