labath marked 2 inline comments as done.
labath added a comment.
In D85904#2215700 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D85904#2215700>, @teemperor wrote:
> Is it too late to claim that I did this on purpose to see if anyone noticed
> the bug? It probably is :/
:P
================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/functionalities/limit-debug-info/main.cpp:32
+struct ShadowedOne : public func_shadow::One {
+ constexpr ShadowedOne() = default;
+ int member = 47;
----------------
teemperor wrote:
> I'm probably missing something obvious here, but why give every class in the
> test a defaulted constexpr constructor?
I was trying to guarantee that these variables get constant-initialized because
earlier versions of this test just inspected a static binary without running
it. But then one of the cases actually required running code so it no longer
serves any purpose. I'll just delete them...
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85904/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85904
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
