- User Since
- Jul 12 2018, 2:31 PM (53 w, 3 d)
Wed, Jul 17
Is it worth it to write a test that verifies the output? Otherwise LGTM.
Tue, Jul 16
Applying clang-format to test
Mon, Jul 15
This LGTM now but I will wait for @teemperor to take a look at it.
Mon, Jul 8
Jun 10 2019
Thanks for fixing this! LGTM
May 30 2019
Actually I was mistaken, we can see the difference for EnumDecl and ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl as well.
May 29 2019
I think the AST dump for EnumDecl and ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl should be dumping the missing SourceLocations but I am having trouble tracking down where that should be done.
So an alternative to testing could be matching the AST output from a clang-import-test like we did here:
May 28 2019
I don't see any regressions but I am a little uncomfortable since there are no tests. So I would feel better if this was split into three parts: Namespaces, Enums and Templates.
May 24 2019
@davide We have a reproducer but so far it has proven difficult to narrow it down to a test case. This is serious regression b/c this leads to fields being dropped in records during expression evaluation leading to results that looks like a bug but are actually expression parsing issues.
May 23 2019
Minor comments, I am going to run check-lldb now.
May 21 2019
LGTM outside of Jonas's comments.
May 15 2019
I ran check-lldb and I hit one regression in TestFormatters.py, part of what I am seeing is as follows:
@friss we have several bugs, once of which I can reproduce but I have not been able to reduce it to a minimal case yet and the nullptr check is obviously the right to do.
Simplified the checking of symbol being a nullptr
May 14 2019
Done with first round.
May 13 2019
May 10 2019
May 9 2019
May 3 2019
Updating after https://reviews.llvm.org/D46551 landed
May 2 2019
Thank you! LGTM, in general we avoid "large" refactoring changes to avoid polluting the blame list but the changes are relatively local and they are good changes that can catch real bugs in the future. I would like a second set of eyes though.
May 1 2019
Modifying copy contructor to be act more intuitively.
Testing both passing as and argument and returning
@friss added second test
@teemperor good call, that is indeed simpler and yes I did not intend that delete.
- Simplifying test
- Fixing unintended deleted test
Apr 30 2019
This is a good change!
Changed to reflect comments.
- Added comments to test to explain what it is doing.
- Formatting and other minor fixes.
@friss makes sense, updated comment.
Updated comment to be more precise.
Apr 29 2019
Fred is correct, I mistakenly thought the parts of the test that were working were being covered elsewhere but that is not the case. So I have reworked this change to instead of skipping the whole test to comment out the inline expressions that are specifically broken.
@friss updated the change to only effect those specifically broken.
Apr 26 2019
Apr 25 2019
@rsmith I tagged you in this change in case we are missing any implications in using DW_CC_pass_by_reference to do setArgPassingRestrictions(clang::RecordDecl::APK_CannotPassInRegs);
Apr 24 2019
Apr 15 2019
Small updated to test, remove use of printf and associated include.
Apr 11 2019
Apr 10 2019
@friss I had to rework the tests a little but they now cover Objective-C static and non-static methods as well as C and C++.
-Adjusting tests to ensure coverage of Objecive-C static and non-static methods and C and C++
Apr 9 2019
@friss I believe I have addressed your comments
- Now applies to all languages not just C++
- When adding locals be more selective on filtering i.e. only filter self and _cmd for Objective C etc...
Apr 8 2019
Mar 28 2019
@stella.stamenova I committed a fix, please let me know if this does not address the regression: