teemperor added a comment.
> I don't really have the full context here, but I am wondering if we shouldn't
> somehow take the DW_AT_declaration attribute into account here. It seems like
> that should give a more definitive answer as to whether we can expect to see
> a full set of template parameters or not.
I think that is actually a good approach. I think the current patch rejects
forward declarations (which is fine as we don't have the required information
in DWARF) and empty parameter packs (which is the edge case the original patch
fixed).
Example: this is currently rejected even though we have all the required
information:
template<typename ...T>
struct X {};
int main() {
X<int> x;
}
->
0x00000059: DW_TAG_structure_type
DW_AT_calling_convention (DW_CC_pass_by_value)
DW_AT_name ("X<int>")
DW_AT_byte_size (0x01)
DW_AT_decl_file
("/home/teemperor/test/someoneshouldreallypaymeforthis.cpp")
DW_AT_decl_line (2)
0x00000062: DW_TAG_GNU_template_parameter_pack
DW_AT_name ("T")
0x00000067: DW_TAG_template_type_parameter
DW_AT_type (0x00000052 "int")
0x0000006c: NULL
0x0000006d: NULL
0x0000006e: NULL
I think having a fake class with a weird identifiers that contains template
arguments is better than the missing arguments, so this looks in general good
to me.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126668/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126668
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
