labath added a comment. In D68134#1687031 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134#1687031>, @mstorsjo wrote:
> In D68134#1686970 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134#1686970>, @thakis wrote: > > > We can add flags for omitting access specifiers etc if it's critical for > > lldb. Or maybe we can just change the test that caused the revert. > > > Yeah I doubt it's critical to maintain the exact same form as before, but I > need to get the tests running in my cross compile setup to verify exactly how > to update them. I'm not sure what failed here exactly, but there are some places in lldb that parse the demangled names. These might get confused by additional things appearing in the name. Though it's possible to also fix that, so the main question might be: what is the name we want to display to the users? I guess it would be the best if this matched what is displayed by other tools ? As for tests, you should at least be able to run the tests in the regular "host" setup, right ? Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
