Michael137 wrote: > The DWARFASTParserClang.cpp will try to create the class from the DWARF for > the class definition. You will need to find the DW_TAG_variable when we are > creating the static field if there is no DW_AT_const_value in the > DW_TAG_member. But we also need to support the DW_AT_const_value being in the > DW_TAG_member since older DWARF will be emitted like this.
That's 100% correct. I was thinking, before [this block](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8b91de5d6a3f98dcc00bbd286e339e512f7e3682/lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFASTParserClang.cpp#L2909-L2919) where we check for the existence of a `const_value_form`. With this patch such constant won't exist on the declaration. So I was thinking we would try to look for the definition. What's interesting is that with this patch, the expression evaluator successfully finds the DW_TAG_variable which have a location attribute but not if they have a constant instead of a location. It's probably some logic that assumes statics always have a location > Are we going to emit a DW_AT_const_expr now in the DW_TAG_member? If so, then > we will know that we need to look for the DW_TAG_variable. I don't think > clang emitted the DW_AT_const_expr attribute before. That wasn't part of this patch. But would make sense to add (i've noticed GCC adds that attribute) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70639 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
