labath wrote: > > > This patch as-is is NFC? > > > > > > NFC_**I**_, I would say :) I don't think this should change the behavior in > > any way, but it's pretty hard to guarantee that. > > Sure enough - I take any claim as a statement of intent/belief, not of > something mathematically proved, etc.
True, but in case of this code, even believing you know what it does may be a tough ask. :D > Perhaps a separate commit could add another RUN line to the existing test you > added to demonstrate the reason for the revert? Rather than worrying about > which comes first (the type unit patch or the delay patch) > > But in any case, I /think/ I understand why this patch doesn't need a test > (because this patch avoids the delay patch causing a crash (yeah, more > complex than that because the patch doesn't apply cleanly over this one) and > that crash already has a test committed) - thanks for the explanation. Correct. The reason for revert has already been established with the first test. I'll create a separate patch for the type unit bug, but it will be slightly more complicated than adding a RUN line, because, due to the bug, the lldb will print the wrong type. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96484 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
