bulbazord added a reviewer: JDevlieghere. bulbazord added a comment. In D150228#4330798 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150228#4330798>, @jingham wrote:
> Apparently a similar change was made with dw_tag_t, in the line below your > first deletion I see: > > typedef llvm::dwarf::Tag dw_tag_t; > > It seems weird to have dw_tag_t but lvm::dwarf::Form. If there's a good > reason to use the more verbose form, we should probably do the same with the > Tag for consistency. Otherwise, you can just play the same re-typedef-ing as > was done for tag, right? Yes, Jonas did that work in 7fa72881d4cbf. I intentionally chose to not typedef here as a matter of personal preference, I prefer the explicitness of the full type. I do agree that we should be consistent here though. I don't think it quite matters which solution we go with, but do you (or anybody else) have strong opinions about this? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150228/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150228 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
