labath added a comment. I can't say I fully understand all of this code, but I also don't know who would, so I guess I'll just say it "looks good" :)
I am wondering about the testing situation though. If I understand correctly, you've run the test suite with hardcoded simplified names, and it all passed (?) I am definitely not suggesting we add a new test suite mode for that, but maybe we could extend this one test case with extra check that look at the type names in other contexts than in name lookup (e.g. expression evaluation, backtraces, ???) -- just to make sure that something doesn't break there in the future. WDYT? ================ Comment at: lldb/test/API/lang/cpp/unique-types2/main.cpp:20 + FooPack<int, int> t6; + FooPack<int, int, int> t7; + // Set breakpoint here ---------------- Would it be interesting to test nested types as well (`Foo<T>::Bar<U>`) ? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134378/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134378 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
