================
@@ -18,6 +18,22 @@
namespace lldb_private::dil {
+static lldb::ValueObjectSP
+ArrayToPointerConversion(lldb::ValueObjectSP valobj,
+ std::shared_ptr<ExecutionContextScope> ctx) {
+ assert(valobj->IsArrayType() &&
+ "an argument to array-to-pointer conversion must be an array");
+
+ uint64_t addr = valobj->GetLoadAddress();
+ llvm::StringRef name = "result";
+ ExecutionContext exe_ctx;
+ ctx->CalculateExecutionContext(exe_ctx);
+ return ValueObject::CreateValueObjectFromAddress(
+ name, addr, exe_ctx,
+
valobj->GetCompilerType().GetArrayElementType(ctx.get()).GetPointerType(),
+ /* do_deref */ false);
+}
+
----------------
labath wrote:
Yes, that's definitely a job for a separate patch.
To answer Jim's question, I don't see a specific downside to the second option.
Just some open questions. I don't exactly know what the interface of the new
methods should be for instance (maybe it should not return a ValueObject since
GetChildCompilerTypeAtIndex does not either). Ideally, I also wouldn't want too
much code duplication between this and GetChildCompilerTypeAtIndex. But
generally, yes, I think this would be better.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134428
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
