https://github.com/labath commented:
Even though you've removed the smart pointer checking function (the most obvious example of language-specific behavior), I'm still worried about whether the overall design of this code will allow you to avoid it. Looking at the `IdentifierInfo` class, I see that it can be constructed with only a type (the value is optional). I think this is going to be very hard to make work, since a type does not know if its a smart pointer (only a value does). Have you already figured out a way to make that work? IndentifierInfo isn't the only suspicious place though. All of the places that are doing something with bitfield offsets are very suspicious to me, as that's something that the Values should already know. I haven't seen the parser, but I wouldn't be surprised if this has something to do with the vexing parse issues of C languages, where one needs to know if something is a type just to parse the expression correctly. Now, if that's the case, and if really need to know if something is a smart pointer (i.e. whether it is dereferencable) without having access to a value of that type, then we may need to have a bigger discussion about what to do about that. 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
