[lldb] Fallback to implicit modules when explicit modules are missing (#8356) #8427
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…#8356) Handle the case where an explicit module path does not exist, by falling back to implicit modules. The initial logic is: If any one explicit module is nonexistent, then remove all references to explicit modules. Additionally, remove all explicit module maps. (cherry-picked from commit 2abff47)
kastiglione
deleted the
dl/next/lldb-Fallback-to-implicit-modules-when-explicit-modules-are-missing-8356
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Handle the case where an explicit module path does not exist, by falling back to
implicit modules.
The initial logic is: If any one explicit module is nonexistent, then remove all
references to explicit modules. Additionally, remove all explicit module maps.
(cherry-picked from commit 2abff47)