cmtice wrote: > > BTW, I have verified that this stripped down version passes all the frame > > variable tests in LLDB. > > That's cool. Just to confirm, have you looked at replacing `target variable` > as well? It uses the same language as "frame var" under the hood, which but > it has a somewhat different starting point (it basically ignores the local > scope and looks only at globals), which means it may need some special > handling in the new parser. >
No, I have not looked at 'target variable' at this time. > > I agree with Jim re the DIL language: We should only have a single language > > definition, and it can be a superset of the languages it supports. So there > > may be parts of it that belong to particular languages, but that does not > > mean it supports those languages exclusively. > > This direction makes sense to me, but I think that's all the more reason to > be conservative/cautious about adding new features to the language. We can't > just put every possible feature of every language into it, as we'd end up > with a unmaintainable mess. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95738 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
