cmtice wrote: > > > Is the plan to get the DIL data structures merged before the rest of the > > > patch series is up for review? I think it'd be great to see how the > > > infrastructure introduced here will be used > > > > > > There are 3 major pieces to the DIL implementation (soon to be 4, once I've > > got the lexer written): The AST bit; the parser, which is a recursive > > descent parser using the .ebnf grammar; and the interpreter/evaluator. The > > parser performs parsing and type-checking on the input expression, building > > up the AST as it goes. Once the AST is built, it gets passed to the > > interpreter/evaluator, which evaluates the AST (performing more correctness > > checks along the way), returning an LLDB ValueObjectSP at the end. I have > > both 'stripped down' and 'full' versions of all of these pieces. The > > 'stripped down' pieces match the current 'frame variable' functionality, > > and the 'full' versions implement extensions to that functionality > > (allowing it to handle all the expressions that lldb-eval could handle). > > The plan is to submit a series of PRs as follows: 1). the AST parts (this > > PR). 2). the not-yet-written lexer (with any necessary changes to the > > already submitted AST parts); 3). the parser; 4) the evaluator; 5); the > > 'glue', i.e. updates to things like StackFrame.cpp & > > CommandObjectFrame.cpp, to hook up the new DIL implementation (optionally), > > as well as the test cases. Currently, the stripped down parser is ~2700 > > lines of code, and the stripped down evaluator is ~1000 lines of code. > > As I mentioned in an earlier comment (on June 24), you can see the full > > (not stripped down) implementation at > > https://github.com/cmtice/llvm-project/tree/DIL-work-new/ , although I have > > not (yet) updated that with the updates that have gone into this PR. > > Does that answer all of your questions? Or is there more you would like to > > know or see? > > Thanks for the breakdown! I was just wondering whether the plan was to merge > this before the other PRs are up. I think it'd be preferable to merge them > once they all have been approved. Though if others are ok with the current > strategy I don't want to block this.
I was under the impression that the plan was to merge each PR as it was approved (I thought things might be less confusing that way). But I am certainly open to alternatives. If the folks reviewing these DIL PR's would prefer to have all the PRs available for review at the same time, I can put most of the others out for review now as well. Just let me know. 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
