teemperor added a comment. This seems reasonable to me, but I'll leave this open for a while in case someone that knows more about Rust mangling shows up. Otherwise I'll accept this next week.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Core/Mangled.cpp:213 + else + LLDB_LOGF(log, "demangled rustv0: %s -> error: failed to demangle", M); + } ---------------- Please use LLDB_LOG in new code: `LLDB_LOG(log, "demangled rustv0: {0} -> \"{1}\"", M, demangled_cstr);` (same in the line below). (The code above just didn't get updated yet) ================ Comment at: lldb/unittests/Core/MangledTest.cpp:72 + + EXPECT_STREQ("", TheDemangled.GetCString()); +} ---------------- Could you do me a favour and change your test functions to LLDB's code style, so `mangled_name` as a variable name instead of `MangledName` and so on. I'm aware the rest of the file is already using LLVM code style, but I think that's was just an oversight. I'll probably change the code style in this file to LLDB's and it would keep the git history a bit simpler. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104054/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104054 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits