aprantl marked 3 inline comments as done. aprantl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/ExpressionParser/Clang/IRForTarget.cpp:308 lldb::TargetSP target_sp(m_execution_unit.GetTarget()); - lldb_private::ExecutionContext exe_ctx(target_sp, true); - llvm::Optional<uint64_t> bit_size = - m_result_type.GetBitSize(exe_ctx.GetBestExecutionContextScope()); + llvm::Optional<uint64_t> bit_size = m_result_type.GetBitSize(target_sp.get()); if (!bit_size) { ---------------- shafik wrote: > Is this equivalent to what was being done previously or is this better in > some way? The old code took a `TargetSP`, wrapped it in an `ExecutionContext`, and then called `GetBestExecutionContextScope()`, which returns the `Target *`. (`Target` inherits from `ExecutionContextScope`) So the new code does exactly the same thing as the old code but it's much shorter. ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/TypeSystem/Clang/TypeSystemClang.cpp:4092 TypeSystemClang::GetArrayElementType(lldb::opaque_compiler_type_t type, - uint64_t *stride) { if (type) { ---------------- teemperor wrote: > So we already have this dubious stride extra-output here, but now it also > requires us to have an execution context parameter. I think we might as well > just remove that parameter (in a separate patch). Are you saying no one uses `stride`? Not even a future Fortran lldb Plugin? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84267/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84267 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits