- User Since
- Jul 12 2018, 2:31 PM (62 w, 3 d)
Tue, Sep 10
Changes based on comments:
- Fixing test based on comments
- Refactored test to use a function to do repetitive task
Fri, Sep 6
Thu, Sep 5
It is not obvious what the change in result is expected to be so a test would be helpful.
Wed, Sep 4
Thank you! LGTM
Tue, Sep 3
Sat, Aug 31
It is worth noting that:
Fri, Aug 30
Thu, Aug 29
LGTM but I agree w/ Gabor's comments
I was concerned about how this would affect LLDB but after thinking about it I realized that in the DWARF we will just end up with one DW_TAG_class_type.
Tue, Aug 27
Mon, Aug 26
Updating test to be more specific
Other than my two comment this LGTM
Aug 23 2019
Aug 22 2019
- Adding more context
- Adjusting the test to be more strict
Aug 21 2019
- Adding documentation to LangRef.rst
- Simplified the test further.
@djtodoro Thank for the suggestions on how to simplify the test even more.
Aug 20 2019
Changed isExportSymbols -> getExportSymbols
I also just realized that although I originally talked about LLDB being the consumer, ultimately since we have to assume any AST we generate from DWARF can be used in expression parsing clang is also the consumer as well.
Aug 19 2019
I am not enthusiastic about this solution but I need to think about it some more.
Aug 16 2019
Deleting some lines from the test as requested.
Aug 15 2019
Just wanted to see if you were planning on landing this soon, the fix Name -> SearchName is probably an important one since we have seen several issues w/ bugs like that but I really would like to see more tests. Are you having issues coming up w/ tests?
I was hoping to be able reproduce this in LLDB via an expression like this:
Aug 14 2019
Fixing has_name to better reflect the condition.
Aug 13 2019
Aug 12 2019
Aug 9 2019
Aug 2 2019
@aprantl I did not know either until I looked at decorators.py and it says:
Adding as suggested.
Aug 1 2019
Fix that should fix the failing PDB test.
Thank you for writing this up! I just have a few minor comments.
Jul 30 2019
@stella.stamenova that is unfortunate but not surprising. I don't have a way to test a fix locally. Is there anyone who might be able to help me iterate over a fix or maybe a new maintainer of the PDB parsing?
Jul 29 2019
@stella.stamenova this could potentially break the windows build, could you please verify before I land this change. Thank you in advance!
Simplifying Makefile even more
- Simplifying Makefile
- Adding comments to the test
Jul 25 2019
First round of review.
Jul 24 2019
Thanks for fixing this one!
Jul 22 2019
Also once we get one test going then it should be easy to add coverage for all sorts of scenarios. Who knows maybe we will find more bugs.
Jul 17 2019
Is it worth it to write a test that verifies the output? Otherwise LGTM.