Michael137 added a comment. In D145803#4186805 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D145803#4186805>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Yeah, can't say this had occurred to me - but totally makes sense/reckon it's > OK. Any reason to limit this to lldb? I'd expect it'd probably "Just > Work(tm)" on any DWARF consumer? No particular reason other than being on the safe side and get field experience before enabling it for all consumers. But I agree, I don't see why this couldn't be enabled always. > it doesn't hit any recursion issues? (I guess maybe skirts it due to the > existing recursion handling in the decl/def structure type stuff - so it > creates a declaration for the type, then creates the typedef, which can find > that existing declaration, then return the typedef from the create type > query?) Yup that's the intention > I guess it means that references to the type even for like, the type of the > "this" parameter - would refer to the typedef? That's /probably/ OK if a bit > surprising to some people/consumers sometimes? Good point, it does also repoint the `this` pointer to the typedef. LLDB seems to handle this fine. Can add some test cases for this (in Clang and LLDB) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D145803/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D145803 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
