labath wrote: I can believe that this behavior is undesirable. Like I said, I totally understand *why* you did this. It's the *how* I have a problem with. I don't believe the we've sufficiently considered the bigger picture. Why does `AddressOf` handle references transparently and `Dereference` does not? Are there any other methods that need to be changed to make the ValueObject interface consistent? Is this even the right level (we're about six layers away from VSCode) to implement this behavior?
If you think about it even the implementation of the patch is a bit strange -- this is the first "address of" operation that's implemented in terms of "dereferencing" (and if we changed "dereference" to be transparent, this implementation would break). Please don't take this personally. I can certainly see how you could have though you're making an obvious bugfix here. But, in light of what I've just said, I think this needs more discussion (and I think this ought to be reverted until that is done). @jimingham, as the own^Wmaintainter of the ValueObject library, what do you think? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113596 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
