labath added a comment. In D65955#1621400 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65955#1621400>, @amccarth wrote:
> I'm curious, though, where is the matching code? Should "unknown" be treated > as a wildcard when trying to find the matching module? The matching code lives ArchSpec::IsEqualTo, and its behavior is a topic that comes up regularly (I think the last discussion was here http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2018-December/014437.html). The summary of the problem is that there are instances when people want/need/... to e.g. use "unknown" OS to mean that there really is no OS (because we're debugging a bare metal target for instance), but there are also other cases that want to treat it as a wildcard. Lldb gets around this by having a concept of a "specified" and "unspecified" unknown, but that is sort of an abuse of the llvm Triple class, because it works by examining the string representation of the triple fields and treating "" and "unknown" differently (even though they both resolve to the UnknownOS enum). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65955/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65955 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
