Michael137 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/unittests/Language/CPlusPlus/CPlusPlusLanguageTest.cpp:167
+ EXPECT_TRUE(reference_4.ContainsPath("operator"));
EXPECT_TRUE(reference_4.ContainsPath("operator bool"));
----------------
Michael137 wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > Is this actually expected? Like, I don't think it's completely wrong, but I
> > definitely did not expect it to do that.
> I agree, it's not intuitive. This happens because `operator` is a reserved
> keyword in the eyes of the `CPlusPlusNameParser`. It will just consume the
> entire token and return an empty string.
>
> This won't work for the breakpoint matching logic. I thought we'd just test
> it here in case the someone ever decides to change this behaviour
> This won't work for the breakpoint matching logic.
I.e., we don't allow matching breakpoints on just `operator`. IIRC something
else in the breakpoint resolver accounts for this. Seems fragile though
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135921/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135921
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
