dblaikie added a comment. I think the place where this will go wrong is in terms of how lldb renders `char` values on non-default-char-signedness programs (it'll render them as the default-char-signedness, which might be confusing to a user - since they'll be looking at literals, etc, that are the other signedness) and how lldb will interpret char literals (though that'll already be wrong - since the literals are already being parsed with the default-char-signedness, I think).
I'm curious why there were all those expected failures re: PR23069. Were they not using the default char signedness? Or is the test using explicit signedness, and so whatever platforms happen not to have the explicit value sa their default are/were failing? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D136011/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D136011 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
