On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:57 AM Greg Clayton via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 18, 2018, at 9:54 AM, <paul.robin...@sony.com> < > paul.robin...@sony.com> wrote: > > > >> Greg wrote: > >>> Pavel wrote: > >>> That said, having DWARF be able to represent the template member > >>> functions in an abstract way also sounds like nice thing to have from > >>> a debug info format. > >> > >> Yes, that would be great, but will require DWARF changes and is much > more > >> long term. > > > > I'm curious what utility this has, other than tidying up the Clang AST > > interface part (because you know what templates exist inside the class). > > I mean, you can't instantiate new functions; and if you're trying to > > call an existing instance, you have to go find it anyway, in whichever > > CU it happens to have been instantiated. > > > > Feel free to start a new thread if this is straying too far from the > > discussion that already strayed from the original topic. :-) > > I do agree. Probably no one else will want/need this in DWARF except us as > I don't believe anyone else is re-creating compiler types with DWARF. Not > that I don't think it is a good idea for debuggers to do as it allows the > compiler to be used in the debugger. That being said, we should probably > look for solutions that are better for all DWARF clients or just fix things > in our debugger. > > Oh, I've seen DWARF used outside of lldb's context to reconstruct types - I also think it's a fairly legitimate use of debug info. If we can make it easier to reconstruct the actual program... -eric > > > Thanks, > > --paulr > > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
