dblaikie added a comment. In D153536#4475199 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153536#4475199>, @cor3ntin wrote:
> In D153536#4474733 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153536#4474733>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> Maybe try testing with more different values, to demonstrate which entities >> the debugger is finding? >> >> int _ = 1; >> int _ = 2; >> { >> int _ = 3; >> int _ = 7; >> } >> >> Or something like that. But, honestly, if the point is that these variables >> should be unnameable - perhaps we shouldn't generate any DWARF for them? > > The variables should still be inspectable, ideally. It's true it makes no > sense to be able to use them in expressions, and maybe if lldb use clang to > evaluate expressions that would just work? I think that's going to be tricky - because we don't emit DWARF to say where one variable's lifetime starts compared to another in the same scope - so likely a debugger would just always show the first or last variable with the same name in a given scope (so in the above example you could probably only print {1,3} or {2,7}) - and getting it wrong is more likely and more problematic than existing cases of shadowed variables. If we can't get this right, which I don't think we can, practically speaking, at the moment (the DWARF feature we'd have to support to do this better would probably be `DW_AT_start_scope` to say at what instruction the lifetime of a variable starts) - it may be best not to include it at all? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153536/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153536 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
