[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb][test] Add test for no_unique_address when mixed with bitfields (PR #108155)

[A. Jiang via lldb-commits]

frederick-vs-ja wrote:

> The test will fail on windows because no_unique_address is not a thing there:

Seems like that we should spell it as `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]` on Windows. 
Is there already such a macro in lldb/test covering this?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108155
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [libcxx] [flang] [clang] [compiler-rt] [llvm] [lldb] [clang-tools-extra] [libc] [lld] [libc++][variant] P2637R3: Member `visit` (`std::variant`) (PR #76447)

[A. Jiang via lldb-commits]

@@ -1273,6 +1293,22 @@ public:
 __impl_.__swap(__that.__impl_);
   }
 
+#  if _LIBCPP_STD_VER >= 26
+  // [variant.visit], visitation
+
+  template 

frederick-vs-ja wrote:

Would it be better to use a special tag type like this
```C++
struct __variant_visit_barrier_tag { // unnamable when using standard library 
modules
  explicit __variant_visit_barrier_tag() = default;
};
// ...
template <__variant_visit_barrier_tag = __variant_visit_barrier_tag{}, class 
_Self, class _Visitor>
// ...
```
to avoid accepting `v.visit<0, T, F>(f)`?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76447
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [libcxx] [flang] [clang] [compiler-rt] [llvm] [lldb] [clang-tools-extra] [libc] [lld] [libc++][variant] P2637R3: Member `visit` (`std::variant`) (PR #76447)

[A. Jiang via lldb-commits]

https://github.com/frederick-vs-ja edited 
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76447
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [libcxx] [lldb] [lldb][libc++] Hide all libc++ implementation details from stacktraces (PR #108870)

[A. Jiang via lldb-commits]

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+import lldb
+from lldbsuite.test.decorators import *
+from lldbsuite.test.lldbtest import *
+from lldbsuite.test import lldbutil
+
+
+class LibCxxInternalsRecognizerTestCase(TestBase):
+NO_DEBUG_INFO_TESTCASE = True
+
+@add_test_categories(["libc++"])
+def test_frame_recognizer(self):
+"""Test that implementation details of libc++ are hidden"""
+self.build()
+(target, process, thread, bkpt) = lldbutil.run_to_source_breakpoint(
+self, "break here", lldb.SBFileSpec("main.cpp")
+)
+
+expected_parents = {
+"sort_less(int, int)": ["::sort", "test_algorithms"],
+# `std::ranges::sort` is implemented as an object of types 
`__sort`.

frederick-vs-ja wrote:

There're a large number of such customization point objects (and niebloids, 
which will be respecified as CPOs soon, see 
[P3136R0](https://wg21.link/p3136r0)) since C++20. Should we invent some 
convention to recognize them uniformly?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108870
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Include `` for `system_clock` (PR #118059)

[A. Jiang via lldb-commits]

https://github.com/frederick-vs-ja approved this pull request.

LGTM!

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118059
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits