zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40745#942913, @jingham wrote:
> I'm sure this is just a "quick and dirty implementation" thing, but depending > on the output of Dump functions doesn't seem like a great idea for long term > stable testing. > > Those functions are meant to be useful for debugging lldb, and gathering data > when you can't get repro cases. They probably don't want to have all the > detail you might need, and are laid out for readability, so they are no more > than ad hoc structured. > > For instance, your dumpClangASTContext finds it's way to CompileUnit::Dump > which doesn't actually call m_types->Dump. That's probably because it was so > noisy as to render the CU dump useless, though it was commented out before > the sources were imported to llvm.org so I don't know for sure. > > Because of that, this command is not currently useful for the purpose for > which it was intended. I think at present it doesn't actually dump anything > that actually gets put into the AST, it just dumps Symbol file information > which is not relevant, CU structures, Function blocks. I definitely agree we would want to re-write the dumping logic to be in the tool itself, so that it can be designed with the purpose in mind. I could probably rename this command to be 'symbols' (even then, we'd probably want to re-write the logic for it), but at least this gets the skeleton in place. https://reviews.llvm.org/D40745 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
