Michael137 added a comment. In D137793#3920254 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137793#3920254>, @aeubanks wrote:
> In D137793#3920253 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137793#3920253>, @Michael137 > wrote: > >> In D137793#3920209 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137793#3920209>, @aeubanks >> wrote: >> >>> add a FIXME? >> >> May be misunderstanding your suggestion, but the malformed DWARF got fixed >> somewhere between clang-14/clang-15. This is only an issue with older clang >> versions. I'm merely getting the old buildbots to pass > > I guess my question is should lldb support the malformed dwarf generated by > older clangs? Ah I see, fair question. Presumably one of the reasons we don't bubble up the error from the `DWARFASTParserClang` to the expression evaluator is specifically because the DWARF can be malformed and evaluation may still succeed. In this case though I'm not sure we can do much because the generated DWARF breaks assumptions that LLDB (via Clang) makes about signedness. I'll double check the exact machinery though and report back Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137793/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137793 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
