================
@@ -511,22 +513,58 @@ ValueObjectSP 
StackFrame::GetValueForVariableExpressionPath(
     VariableSP &var_sp, Status &error) {
   ExecutionContext exe_ctx;
   CalculateExecutionContext(exe_ctx);
+
   bool use_DIL = exe_ctx.GetTargetRef().GetUseDIL(&exe_ctx);
+
   if (use_DIL)
     return DILGetValueForVariableExpressionPath(var_expr, use_dynamic, options,
                                                 var_sp, error);
-
-  return LegacyGetValueForVariableExpressionPath(var_expr, use_dynamic, 
options,
-                                                 var_sp, error);
+  else
+    return LegacyGetValueForVariableExpressionPath(var_expr, use_dynamic,
+                                                   options, var_sp, error);
 }
 
 ValueObjectSP StackFrame::DILGetValueForVariableExpressionPath(
     llvm::StringRef var_expr, lldb::DynamicValueType use_dynamic,
     uint32_t options, lldb::VariableSP &var_sp, Status &error) {
-  // This is a place-holder for the calls into the DIL parser and
-  // evaluator.  For now, just call the "real" frame variable implementation.
-  return LegacyGetValueForVariableExpressionPath(var_expr, use_dynamic, 
options,
-                                                 var_sp, error);
+  ValueObjectSP ret_val;
+  std::shared_ptr<std::string> source =
+      std::make_shared<std::string>(var_expr.data());
+
+  const bool check_ptr_vs_member =
+      (options & eExpressionPathOptionCheckPtrVsMember) != 0;
+  const bool no_fragile_ivar =
+      (options & eExpressionPathOptionsNoFragileObjcIvar) != 0;
+  const bool no_synth_child =
+      (options & eExpressionPathOptionsNoSyntheticChildren) != 0;
+
+  // Parse the expression.
+  Status parse_error, eval_error;
+  dil::DILParser parser(source, shared_from_this(), use_dynamic,
+                        !no_synth_child, !no_fragile_ivar, 
check_ptr_vs_member);
+  dil::DILASTNodeUP tree = parser.Run(parse_error);
+  if (parse_error.Fail()) {
+    error = std::move(parse_error);
+    return ValueObjectSP();
+  }
----------------
cmtice wrote:

I can try to do this, but...I don't understand why using static functions with 
private constructors is any better than the way the current code is? (I DO see 
why using llvm::Expected would be better...)

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120971
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Reply via email to