================ @@ -0,0 +1,459 @@ +//===-- DILAST.h ------------------------------------------------*- C++ -*-===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception +// +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +#ifndef LLDB_CORE_DILAST_H +#define LLDB_CORE_DILAST_H + +#include <memory> +#include <optional> +#include <string> +#include <variant> +#include <vector> + +#include "lldb/Core/ValueObject.h" +#include "lldb/Symbol/Type.h" +#include "lldb/Symbol/TypeList.h" +#include "lldb/Target/LanguageRuntime.h" +#include "lldb/Utility/ConstString.h" +#include "clang/Basic/SourceLocation.h" +#include "clang/Basic/TokenKinds.h" ---------------- labath wrote:
Yeah, that does sound like a problem. Putting this stuff in a plugin would be possible, but it would be a departure from what we've talked about earlier, since we would essentially end up with a different flavour of DIL for every language. Saying that clang *is* the parser for the DIL might also be possible, but that would also warrant more discussion, because we have a (maybe undocumented?) rule of no clang dependencies on lldb core. A third option might be to roll our own parser. Unlike lldb-eval, I think the DIL does not have the ambition of matching c++ (or any other language) precisely, so maybe we have some leeway to remove/skip/alter the features which make parsing c(++) the mess that it is. 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
