jingham added a comment.
I worry that your patch changes the behavior when you add the type_class
explicitly in the lookup (i.e. look up "struct Struct" not "Struct". That
should work...
Note, this doesn't currently work in type lookup:
(lldb) type lookup "struct Foo"
no type was found matching '"struct Foo"'
which I'll have to fix (grr...), but does work correctly in the SB API's:
(lldb) script
Python Interactive Interpreter. To exit, type 'quit()', 'exit()' or Ctrl-D.
>>> module = lldb.target.modules[0]
>>> print module
(x86_64) /tmp/structs
>>> result_list = module.FindTypes("struct Foo")
>>> print result_list.GetSize()
1
>>> print result_list.GetTypeAtIndex(0)
struct Foo {
int First;
}
Other than that this looks correct to me.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Core/Module.cpp:1012
+ TypeClass type_class = eTypeClassAny;
+ Type::GetTypeScopeAndBasename(type_name, type_scope, type_basename,
+ type_class);
----------------
GetTypeScopeAndBasename's behavior is not well documented. It has a bool
return which should mean some kind of failure. The code you are replacing
checks for type_basename.empty() and the type_class not being set, and falls
back on the input name if it is. You unconditionally use type_basename.
The old code's test doesn't actually accord with the current behavior of
GetTypeScopeAndBasename, which will only leave basename empty if the input name
was empty, so far as I can see. So I don't think your version is wrong, but it
is right only by accident. If we are going to rely on this behavior then it's
probably a good idea to document it in the definition of
GetTypeScopeAndBasename. Or go back to checking whether type_basename is
empty...
Also, by not calling GetTypeScopeAndBasename before you call FindTypes_Impl,
your version of the code would pass it "struct Foo" if that's what the user
typed, whereas the old code would pass "Foo" (the struct would get stripped by
GetTypeScopeAndBasename). I'm not sure whether that matters, did you try 'type
lookup "struct Struct"' or something like that? It doesn't look like you do
that in your test cases.
Also your "exact" would call "struct ::Foo" not exact, whereas the old code
would call that exact.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53662
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
