[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG13993a6f8681: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api. (authored by mstorsjo). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo requested review of this revision. mstorsjo added a comment. Does anyone want to ack this one after updating it to not need changes to tests (as far as I know), by using new demangler options? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo updated this revision to Diff 224969. mstorsjo added a comment. Using newly added demangler options to (hopefully) avoid any changes to test outputs (at least the differences seen when applied earlier shouldn't be present any longer). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo marked an inline comment as done. mstorsjo added a comment. In D68134#1700453 , @amccarth wrote: > LGTM after one question. Thanks! I'll hold off committing for a bit still, as I might try to add more options to the microsoft demangler, to

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

amccarth accepted this revision. amccarth added a comment. LGTM after one question. Comment at: lldb/lit/SymbolFile/PDB/udt-layout.test:1 REQUIRES: system-windows, lld RUN: %build --compiler=clang-cl --output=%t.exe %S/Inputs/UdtLayoutTest.cpp Is

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo added a comment. In D68134#1687865 , @labath wrote: > In D68134#1687518 , @mstorsjo wrote: > > > In D68134#1687500 , @labath wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure what

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. In D68134#1687518 , @mstorsjo wrote: > In D68134#1687500 , @labath wrote: > > > I'm not sure what failed here exactly, but there are some places in lldb > >

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo reopened this revision. mstorsjo added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. In D68134#1687500 , @labath wrote: > In D68134#1687031 , @mstorsjo wrote: > > > In D68134#1686970

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo updated this revision to Diff 222358. mstorsjo edited the summary of this revision. mstorsjo added a reviewer: thakis. mstorsjo added a comment. I tried to update the testcases based on the log output

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

labath added a comment. In D68134#1687031 , @mstorsjo wrote: > In D68134#1686970 , @thakis wrote: > > > We can add flags for omitting access specifiers etc if it's critical for > > lldb. Or maybe we can just

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

labath added a comment. (See CPlusPlusLanguage::MethodName for one such parsing instance.) Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134 ___ lldb-commits mailing list

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo added a comment. In 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

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

thakis added a comment. 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. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL373144: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api. NFC. (authored by mstorsjo, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. yay Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134 ___ lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo created this revision. mstorsjo added reviewers: labath, amccarth, rnk, compnerd. Herald added subscribers: JDevlieghere, erik.pilkington. Herald added a project: LLDB. I'm unsure if there's any lldb testcase which exercise this directly (I didn't find any); such testcases could be made