evgeny777 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: tools/lldb-mi/MICmnLLDBDebugger.cpp:37
@@ +36,3 @@
+ return false;
+ stream.Printf("%d %s", (int)value.GetValueAsSigned(), value.GetValue());
+ return true;
----------------
granata.enrico wrote:
> I would definitely not stop the revision for this but I wonder if it would
> make sense to try and discover whether "char" is signed or unsigned from the
> type itself?
To my understanding this is not needed (see comment below)
================
Comment at: tools/lldb-mi/MICmnLLDBDebugger.cpp:835
@@ +834,3 @@
+
+ if (!MI_add_summary(miCategory, "char", MI_char_summary_provider,
+ lldb::eTypeOptionHideValue |
lldb::eTypeOptionSkipPointers))
----------------
evgeny777 wrote:
> granata.enrico wrote:
> > Should you also cover "signed char" and "unsigned char" here?
> Hmm. I thought that if regex is false, exact match will be done, won't it? If
> yes than simple char type should be signed, right?
unsigned - not. signed -yes. One question: if I register summary for "char" -
it will not be called for "unsigned char" and "signed char", right?
If so I will need adding "signed char" and no checks for signed/unsigned inside
summary provider are required, correct?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13799
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
