On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:34 AM David Majnemer via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> majnemer added a comment. > > This might be a silly question but why not do this by default? > I'd hazard a guess that GDB wouldn't cope well with this (in terms of identifying templates as the same type under this flag - one TU has a function that has a parameter type with the name "foo<int>" and the other has a type named "foo<f>" (where f is a typedef of int) - going to guess GDB doesn't realize those are the same type... ) Also, Paul: This doesn't change the type that's referenced in the DW_TAG_template_type_parameter? Would it make sense to actually do this the opposite way - use the canonical name for the name, but have the DW_TAG_template_type_parameter refer to the typedef? Still means the type can vary between different translation units, which seems a bit difficult to deal with, but probably harmless in that case? Would still mean long/unweildy names, though, which I guess is what's being avoided/addressed here. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D35715 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
