lldb-test doesn’t actually exercise any of this. It’s a pretty new addition
and doesn’t even support pdb yet as far as I know. So when you say it fails
without the other changes, but passes with this, I think you must be
talking about some test that runs via check-lldb, or some unittest.
To be cle
asmith added a comment.
This fix is part of a larger set of changes to retrieve the type for a function
signature and I don't see how to test for this without those changes. With all
the other changes, lldb-test fails without this fix and passes with it. So it's
implicitly already tested.
Rep
davide added a comment.
Indeed, this needs to be tested.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41427
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
zturner added a comment.
This is another example where we could test it easily if `lldb-test` could dump
this. Are you willing to take a stab at this?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41427
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commit
asmith created this revision.
asmith added reviewers: zturner, lldb-commits.
For `int main()`, the number of arguments is zero. Trying to access the element
of a null array causes trouble.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41427
Files:
source/Plugins/SymbolFile/PDB/PDBASTParse
