dwblaikie wrote: > Are you suggesting that for the implementation to be considered as complete, > both v1 and v2 should have the same type information? I.e "v1" type should > point to 0x48 instead of 0x6d? As per my understanding based on the DWARF > output below, the type for "trait::type"(0x6d) DOES reference a > DW_TAG_template_type_parameter(0x67) entry:
No, I don't think it should point to 0x67 instead of 0x6d - you could imagine a trait with a resulting type that has nothing to do with T (like `std::conditional_v<T, bool, char>`). My contention is that DWARF doesn't have a way to express this - and I don't really have a good idea for novel solutions/additions to DWARF etc to handle this. And without that, only changing the raw `T` references is of limited value. That's why I don't think this is a great direction to go. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127654 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
