aeubanks added a comment. regarding the failure in TestCPPBreakpointLocations.py (added recently in https://reviews.llvm.org/D135921, seems like it's catching real issues with this patch), it looks like the manual dwarf index needs a similar fix to this
In D134378#3888462 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134378#3888462>, @labath wrote: > 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 > (?) yes, that was true until https://reviews.llvm.org/D135921, which catches some missing functionality in this patch around breakpoints (I'd still like to defer that to a separate patch) > 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? I've added expression evaluation to the test. do you have examples of backtrace tests? ================ Comment at: lldb/test/API/lang/cpp/unique-types2/main.cpp:20 + FooPack<int, int> t6; + FooPack<int, int, int> t7; + // Set breakpoint here ---------------- labath wrote: > Would it be interesting to test nested types as well (`Foo<T>::Bar<U>`) ? yes, and that caught a bug, thanks for the suggestion I've added a `Type::GetBaseName()`, could you take a look at that? 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
