[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG13993a6f8681: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api. (authored by mstorsjo). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.or

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo requested review of this revision. mstorsjo added a comment. Does anyone want to ack this one after updating it to not need changes to tests (as far as I know), by using new demangler options? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D6

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo updated this revision to Diff 224969. mstorsjo added a comment. Using newly added demangler options to (hopefully) avoid any changes to test outputs (at least the differences seen when applied earlier shouldn't be present any longer). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.o

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo marked an inline comment as done. mstorsjo added a comment. In D68134#1700453 , @amccarth wrote: > LGTM after one question. Thanks! I'll hold off committing for a bit still, as I might try to add more options to the microsoft demangler, to matc

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

amccarth accepted this revision. amccarth added a comment. LGTM after one question. Comment at: lldb/lit/SymbolFile/PDB/udt-layout.test:1 REQUIRES: system-windows, lld RUN: %build --compiler=clang-cl --output=%t.exe %S/Inputs/UdtLayoutTest.cpp Is `system-wind

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo added a comment. In D68134#1687865 , @labath wrote: > In D68134#1687518 , @mstorsjo wrote: > > > In D68134#1687500 , @labath wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure what faile

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. In D68134#1687518 , @mstorsjo wrote: > In D68134#1687500 , @labath wrote: > > > I'm not sure what failed here exactly, but there are some places in lldb > > th

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo reopened this revision. mstorsjo added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. In D68134#1687500 , @labath wrote: > In D68134#1687031 , @mstorsjo wrote: > > > In D68134#1686970

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo updated this revision to Diff 222358. mstorsjo edited the summary of this revision. mstorsjo added a reviewer: thakis. mstorsjo added a comment. I tried to update the testcases based on the log output (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x64-windows-ninja/builds/9306/steps/test/logs/s

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

labath added a comment. In D68134#1687031 , @mstorsjo wrote: > In D68134#1686970 , @thakis wrote: > > > We can add flags for omitting access specifiers etc if it's critical for > > lldb. Or maybe we can just change

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

labath added a comment. (See CPlusPlusLanguage::MethodName for one such parsing instance.) Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-co

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo added a comment. In D68134#1686970 , @thakis wrote: > We can add flags for omitting access specifiers etc if it's critical for > lldb. Or maybe we can just change the test that caused the revert. Yeah I doubt it's critical to maintain the exact

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

thakis added a comment. We can add flags for omitting access specifiers etc if it's critical for lldb. Or maybe we can just change the test that caused the revert. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL373144: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api. NFC. (authored by mstorsjo, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Chang

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. yay Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68134 ___ lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68134: [LLDB] Use the llvm microsoft demangler instead of the windows dbghelp api

mstorsjo created this revision. mstorsjo added reviewers: labath, amccarth, rnk, compnerd. Herald added subscribers: JDevlieghere, erik.pilkington. Herald added a project: LLDB. I'm unsure if there's any lldb testcase which exercise this directly (I didn't find any); such testcases could be made