Michael137 wrote: > > One thing I'd like to get feedback on is whether this should be looking > > into base classes. The discussion on the original PR focuses on lexically > > nested types, but going through base classes (following usual language > > rules) is another form of nesting. Both the existing and the new > > implementations don't do that, but I think it would be more natural to do > > it. Of course, then the function can definitely return more than one > > result... > > What you're describing here is in line with member lookup described in the > Standard. While it might be a useful facility, it's at odds with the intent > of `FindDirectNestedTypes()` to be a small building block for efficient AST > traversal. For the use case I have for this function, any amount of lookup is > going to regress the performance of the formatter, and subsequently > responsiveness of the debugger. So if you're going to pursue this, I suggest > exposing this as a new function.
I don't expect the simple `DeclContext` lookup proposed here to be expensive. What *is* expensive from the data-formatters point of view is either full-blown expression evaluation or a global search in DWARF for some type. Re. looking at base classes, don't have a strong opinion on it. There's some precedent for looking at base classes already in `TypeSystemClang` (e.g., `GetIndexOfChildWithName`). But as you say @labath, that would require an API change https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89183 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
