[Lldb-commits] [Diffusion] rL234178: We have an issue where if you use a C function right now that has no prototype…

[Tamas Berghammer]

I would suggest to fix the issue in LLDB with doing a symbol search for the
full unmangled name if we can't find the symbol based on the mangled one as
that one is also present in the symbol list. I  am not sure if it fixes all
of the problem but it should fix this issue (also for the destructors),

Tamas
On Apr 9, 2015 7:34 PM, "Siva Chandra" <sivachandra at google.com> wrote:

> I am still doing my "homework" around this patch. Once I am clear as
> what exactly is happening, I will send it out to the clang list if it
> is still relevant.
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Greg Clayton <clayborg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Siva: You will need to forward this to the clang lists to see if this is
> a correct fix.
> >
> >> On Apr 9, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Siva Chandra <sivachandra at google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I do not have anything concrete. However, the attached patch for clang
> >> fixes both the failing tests. I do not know if my fix is correct. Even
> >> if it is, we should find a way to "workaround" in LLDB so that older
> >> versions of clang are OK. I have some ideas for this, will share when
> >> I am able to put them into concrete words.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Siva Chandra
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Tamas Berghammer
> >> <tberghammer at google.com> wrote:
> >>> +sivachandra
> >>>
> >>> Siva is looking into this issue. The problem is that lldb looks for a
> >>> mangled name _ZN3fooC1Ei while the object file (compiled by clang)
> contains
> >>> it with _ZN3fooC2Ei. The difference is that the first one belongs to
> the
> >>> complete constructor and the second one belongs to the base
> constructor.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20150409/35aef7c3/attachment.html>