That sounds right. Please do fix the function names. We can have another
discussion about naming at some point, but we shouldn't do it piecemeal.
Jim
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> Yea, I can see splitting the target specific stuff into a separate "target
> aware" d
Yea, I can see splitting the target specific stuff into a separate "target
aware" dump function and having the base one not require the exeuction
context and go in Utility. In the interest of not breaking anything it
seems reasonable to try to do that as a separate patch so we the functional
and n
I was actually thinking of making the dump functions free functions that
take a const DataExtractor&. This way the entire implementation could
remain unchanged with the exception of replacing implicit member variable
reads with reads through an explicit instance of the extractor.
This way we don't
Tbh I felt dirty calling it Ex, so thanks for calling me out on it :)
I'll whip up some changes later
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> jingham added a comment.
>
> Is it horrible of me to ask that we choose a name that is more descript
