Michael137 wrote: LGTM
> As far as I know there are some > [plans](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-lldb-moving-libc-data-formatters-out-of-lldb/89591) > to move out libcxx formatters of LLDB. So from this perspective, some code > duplication seems reasonable to me, since only the libstdcxx part will be > used in the future. Yea even without those plans, if either of the STLs ever changes the layout, a generic summary provider immediately becomes more complex to untangle. As much as i dislike code duplication, in my opinion, the formatters are the place where that actually makes maintenance a bit simpler. FWIW, the names `_M_file_name`/`_M_function_name`/`_M_line`/`_M_column` go against the typical libc++ naming convention. These names are [hardcoded in Clang](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/951c67d4dbed4f87f366f1f911bc061bc6da1912/clang/lib/AST/Expr.cpp#L2367-L2387) (presumably because it's supposed to work with libstdc++). In that sense, these are likely to never diverge. But for consistency with other formatters, probably still best to keep them separate https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/203185 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
