This patch fixes a couple of existing tests,

In D62623#1524666, @kwk wrote:

In D62623#1522575, @serge-sans-paille wrote:

@kwk: looks like you're still compiling with clang-7, this patch is to be applied on the master version of LLVM/clang, then you can install it and use it to recompile llvm/lld with coverage info.

Does it make sense to you?

@serge-sans-paille oh yes. Absolutely. Thank you! I will try that out right away.

In D62623#1522575, @serge-sans-paille wrote:

@kwk: looks like you're still compiling with clang-7, this patch is to be applied on the master version of LLVM/clang, then you can install it and use it to recompile llvm/lld with coverage info.

Does it make sense to you?

In D62623#1521999, @kwk wrote:

@serge-sans-paille testing it now.

@serge-sans-paille testing it now.

• Return empty lldb::thread_result_t as {}

Return lldb::thread_result_t() instead of NULL

In D62305#1513642, @labath wrote:

returning lldb::thread_result_t() is probably the best thing to do here...

Fixed second place where nullptr couldn't be converted

Rebase onto master

Rebased onto master

Unchanged commit

• Ran git clang-format HEAD^ and picked changes by hand using git add -p
• Remove left-overs from unfinished rebase before

@JDevlieghere I have commit access now. I'm currently working on rebasing my changes and resolving conflicts in these files where my patch wasn't rebaseable.

I withdraw from my approach and thanks to @teemperor I have found something else to work on. Thank you for this fruitful discussion.

@JDevlieghere can you please commit this in my name? I don't have commit access yet. I've filed an email an hope to get it soon.

@teemperor I've addressed all of your comments. Can you please have another look?

• Address https://reviews.llvm.org/D61847#inline-548989
• Address https://reviews.llvm.org/D61847#inline-548972
• Address https://reviews.llvm.org/D61847#inline-548974

@teemperor Do you recommend me to work on support for GDB's --args parameter then and ditch this review?

In D61737#1497202, @jingham wrote:

I would rather not clutter up the lldb command driver's options with gdb command flags. That seems like it will make lldb harder to figure out and reduce our freedom to choose reasonable short names for lldb driver options.

• Fix https://reviews.llvm.org/D61737#inline-548136

In D61483#1489264, @labath wrote:

This is the old documentation. You should edit the new one in docs/use/map.rst.

In D61440#1489064, @teemperor wrote:

Looks good now, thanks!

@teemperor I've squashed my commits without the last one that did those many changes in the file lldb/source/Plugins/LanguageRuntime/ObjC/AppleObjCRuntime/AppleObjCRuntimeV2.cpp. I hope at least the result is fine now.

In D61440#1488470, @teemperor wrote:

Not sure how you invoke git clang-format, but I assume you specified the wrong commit range...

In D61440#1488450, @teemperor wrote:

FYI, I still think there are some style issues there (e.g. the AppleObjCRuntimeV2.cpp change makes it longer than 80 chars) but I can just clang-format this before committing.

Otherwise, unless someone objects to this change I'll merge this tomorrow. Thanks for the patch @kkleine!

@teemperor I would have loved to use clang-format for this but apparently the LLDB code is still manually formatted. It would be a bliss to just use the LLVM clang-format style and never ever talk about "style" again.

In D61440#1488174, @teemperor wrote:

LGTM module some minor code style issues (You removed some virtuals but didn't fix the indentation of the parameters on the next line, see the inline comments for examples).

In D61368#1485840, @teemperor wrote:

I just realized that you probably don't have commit access yet, so I'll commit this for you. Thanks for the patch!

Can you please explain a usage of the "set bind-root" command? Why would I not want to match the loaded AST against a given matcher?