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

Reply via email to