JDevlieghere added a comment. In D128378#3602888 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128378#3602888>, @aprantl wrote:
> Oh boy, these are scary. Should LLDB fail harder when the utility expression > fails, so we can detect these earlier? Fortunately we print an error, but we're also pretty resilient against some of this information missing. This bug was particularly tricky because it only causes a problem the second time that you execute the utility function, which only occurs when you have lazily instantiated classes (in Swift) which is why we didn't see this on llvm.org CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128378/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128378 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
