[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53749: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs Review". This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rLLDB345374: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313 (authored by aleksandr.urakov, committed by ). Changed prior to c

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53749: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313

aleksandr.urakov added a comment. Ok, good! Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://reviews.llvm.org/D53749 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53749: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313

zturner added a comment. For trivial changes it's ok to submit without review. This is true for cleanup and trivial refactor, but especially for build break like this one., and even more so if you consider yourself code owner in the corresponding code area. Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://rev

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53749: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313

For trivial changes it's ok to submit without review. This is true for cleanup and trivial refactor, but especially for build break like this one., and even more so if you consider yourself code owner in the corresponding code area. On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:29 AM Aleksandr Urakov via Phabricator

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53749: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313

aleksandr.urakov added a comment. Ok, thanks! I didn't know about such rule. I'll reduce usages of auto :) As for such an obvious changes, is it ok to commit them without a review? Or is it still preferable to create reviews for them? Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://reviews.llvm.org/D53749

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53749: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313

zturner added a subscriber: aleksandr.urakov. zturner added a comment. Ahh, I meant to remind you, because I noticed this when I was looking through the SymbolFilePDB code recently. I think the LLVM guideline is not to use so much auto. The generally accepted rule is that we can use for the resu

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53749: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313

Ahh, I meant to remind you, because I noticed this when I was looking through the SymbolFilePDB code recently. I think the LLVM guideline is not to use so much auto. The generally accepted rule is that we can use for the result of make_shared, make_unique, and result of iterator types, but otherw

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53749: [PDB] Fix `SymbolFilePDBTests` after r345313

aleksandr.urakov created this revision. aleksandr.urakov added reviewers: zturner, stella.stamenova. aleksandr.urakov added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. This one fixes tests compilation preserving the type of the `scope` parameter. Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://r