Nerixyz wrote:
> I think we'll then cache the {typename, second_validator} so at that point
> we're getting no benefit from caching...
Yes, if you're going back and forth, then the current caching won't help.
I'm not that familiar with all the use cases of LLDB. In my thinking, you'd
break in the client, evaluate multiple variables and then break in the server
where you'd also evaluate multiple variables. My assumption would be that some
of these have the same type. In that case you'd get two misses but all other
requests would be cached.
Zooming out a bit more: what's the concrete use-case where this would be a
problem? As explained above, having two types with the same name but different
layouts seems really rare. Moreover, you'd need to be debugging both at the
same time to run into this. And even then, it's not a logic bug but a
performance bug.
> Maybe you can do it a unit test w/o going that far?
I'll try to do this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143748
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
