search for: r172591

...ore of a "nice to have" or "be good to think about how any >>>> future design wouldn't preclude fixing this gap" sort of thing. >>>> >>> >>> It looks like this is how debug info for static data members used to >>> look until r172591 landed back in 2013. >>> >> >> Could you explain more what you mean by "<this> is how it worked until" - >> 'this' being how it used to work and how you're proposing to make it work? >> I'm not quite following. >> > > Sorr...

...rently works - so >> this may be more of a "nice to have" or "be good to think about how any >> future design wouldn't preclude fixing this gap" sort of thing. >> > > It looks like this is how debug info for static data members used to look > until r172591 landed back in 2013. > Could you explain more what you mean by "<this> is how it worked until" - 'this' being how it used to work and how you're proposing to make it work? I'm not quite following. > There are a couple of tests that exercise this path > (D...

...ot;be good to think about how any >>>>>> future design wouldn't preclude fixing this gap" sort of thing. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It looks like this is how debug info for static data members used to >>>>> look until r172591 landed back in 2013. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Could you explain more what you mean by "<this> is how it worked until" >>>> - 'this' being how it used to work and how you're proposing to make it >>>> work? I'm not...

...about how any >>>>>>> future design wouldn't preclude fixing this gap" sort of thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like this is how debug info for static data members used to >>>>>> look until r172591 landed back in 2013. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could you explain more what you mean by "<this> is how it worked >>>>> until" - 'this' being how it used to work and how you're proposing to make >>>>> i...

...t;>>>>>> future design wouldn't preclude fixing this gap" sort of thing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It looks like this is how debug info for static data members used to >>>>>>> look until r172591 landed back in 2013. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you explain more what you mean by "<this> is how it worked >>>>>> until" - 'this' being how it used to work and how you're proposing to make >&g...

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:09 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < >> dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On