In D114437#3171687, @compnerd wrote:

I think that this is almost correct now. While this will generate the binaries correctly, this is still a problem for tests. Without the absolute path, we now run the risk of the DT_NEEDED being correct but without a DT_RPATH/DR_RUNPATH, this could pick up the wrong library still at runtime. While the link time issue is resolved, the runtime portion is still a problem.

In D114437#3157211, @compnerd wrote:

I'm not sure that this is a good idea. This now means that you can link against two different versions of this library - one when building LLVMSupport and one that any user linking against LLVMSupport happens to find in the library search path. Consider someone explicitly providing a path to the terminfo library when configuring. At the very least, the library search path should be propagated to ensure that the right version is used.

In D112819#3097997, @antiagainst wrote:

Nice, thanks!

Add a FXIME comment in emitLabel function:

Thanks! Maybe I can add something like a "UnindentScope"? So we can temporarily print something without any indents.

@sammccall Thanks! Fixed 3 typo.

In D92041#2454236, @sammccall wrote:

Very nice, thanks!
I'll land this for you now.

Thank you, it works like a charm!
For class withou template, getHoverInfo(QualType ...) will add namespace scope by default, so I have to add SuppressScope printpolicy here.

In D92041#2446366, @sammccall wrote:

Sorry for the delay here. Kadir is out on vacation.

Yikes - it's a shame reusing our existing type printing doesn't do the right thing, but injected-classname and partial specializations are indeed weird.
I'm tempted to say just to live with the "type-parameter-0-0" nonsense rather than implement the workaround, but it's up to you.

getHoverInfo(CXXThisExpr->getType()->getPointeeType(), ...) does not output namespace scope and template parameters without specialization:

Thanks, it look more clear really. I'm trying to make the hover looks like auto

In D92041#2424869, @kadircet wrote:

can you give me an email address to associate the commit with?

In D92041#2420251, @kadircet wrote:

Do you have commit access or should I commit this for you?

Thanks. Update commit to fix the last nit.

Thanks! Update the commit as review comments.

Update the diff with getHoverContents(const NamedDecl ..) overload function.