davide accepted this revision.
davide added a comment.
LGTM. I'll commit for you once Greg reviews it again.
================
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/arm/breakpoint-thumb-codesection/main.c:1
+__attribute__((section("__codesection")))
+int f(int a) {
----------------
kbaladurin wrote:
> clayborg wrote:
> > Will this work with all compilers we currently run the test suite with? I
> > would assume with will work with GCC and Clang at least. IF not, we might
> > need to make a lldbtest.h file that any test case can use and use a macro
> > here?
> What compilers do we use with test suite? This construction works fine with
> gcc and clang. Is it enough for us?
I think this is fine.
BTW, if we really want to abstract this, the place is not lldb but llvm.
We already have an header for the purpose.
```
llvm/Support/Compiler.h
```
But again, I don't think this is needed.
================
Comment at: source/Core/Section.cpp:30
-static const char *GetSectionTypeAsCString(lldb::SectionType sect_type) {
+const char *Section::GetSectionTypeAsCString(lldb::SectionType sect_type) {
switch (sect_type) {
----------------
kbaladurin wrote:
> clayborg wrote:
> > Why did you take static off of this function? Please remove this change, or
> > change this function to get the section type from the section itself and
> > not require the argument.
> I change it to static method to use it in `lldb-test`. There is similar
> static methods in `Value` and `Scalar` classes:
> `Value::GetValueTypeAsCString` and `Scalar::GetValueTypeAsCString`. Is non
> static method more preferable for us in this case?
I think what you did was correct. Greg?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44998
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
