Michael137 wrote: > So I guess what you are saying in this case is that it is expected and the > value is at the location indicated by the DW_AT_location value? As long as > the value is still available I suppose that is fine then and the test just > needs updating.
Yup that's exactly right. I'll go ahead with @pogo59's suggestion then and make sure we also emit the constant on the definition when we can. If updating your test to accommodate for only having the DW_AT_location is feasible for now that'd be great since I'll only be able to get to it tomorrow https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71780 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
