cmtice wrote: > > > Didn't quite finish, but this is what I have so far. I am wondering about > > > the usefulness of the `IdentifierInfo`. It started out its existence in a > > > completely different world than what we have now -- where the operations > > > were mainly defined on types instead of values. Does it bring us anything > > > in the new setup or could we replace it by passing ValueObjects directly? > > > > > > When doing straight variable name lookup, I agree that there's not much > > added benefit to using the IdentifierNodes, but they're needed more (at the > > moment) when we're looking up field member names. Unless you strongly > > object, I'd like to keep them for now, and maybe revisit their usefulness > > when looking at the PR that handles field/member name resolution. > > I'm somewhat tempted to say we should do the opposite (remove it now, and > reintroduce it later if it is needed), but it would be nice to avoid doing > that work if it's going to be reintroduced anyway. Can you explain why you > think it is necessary for child member resolution (i.e., what does it tell > you that cannot be obtained from a ValueObject representing the child member)? >
I've figured out how to make removing IdentifierInfo work. Done now. 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
