aprantl added a comment.
@dblaikie wrote:
> (idle question: Is this code remotely related to any code in LLVM's
> libDebugInfoDWARF? Does this patch take us closer to or further away from
> unifying them? If it takes us further away, any chance of designing it in a
> direction that points towards each other rather than away from?)
There's definitely an opportunity to refactor the main loop of Evaluate() to
use llvm::DWARFExpression::iterator. I would say The impact of this patch
towards that goal is neutral. The iterator (and all of libDebugInfo) doesn't
care about the semantics of DWARF expressions.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Expression/DWARFExpression.cpp:2615
if (stack.empty()) {
// Nothing on the stack, check if we created a piece value from DW_OP_piece
----------------
@labath wrote:
> Are you sure that this logic is correct in presence of DW_OP(_bit)_piece? If
> I follow this right, then the final value type will be determined by the last
> operand. That sounds like it could be right for regular dwarf expressions,
> but I'm not sure about those with pieces. The classification function will
> mark those as "memory", and that doesn't sound right...
DW_OP_pieces are handled in this block.
For your immediate question, this means that this patch is safe. However, it
also highlights that this patch isn't fixing the same bug in a composite
location description. I'll address this in my next revision of the patch.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98996/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98996
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
