dwblaikie wrote:
> > Mostly I worry it won't be terribly complete, because it can't work through
> > situations, like this:
> > ```
> > template<typename T>
> > struct trait {
> > using type = T;
> > };
> > template<typename T>
> > struct other {
> > trait<T>::type v1;
> > T v2;
> > };
> > ```
> > In this case, v2 can be described as being of type "T" referencing the
> > template_type_parameter, but v1 can't be - because it references
> > trait::type, for instance.
>
> I believe, in this case, the debug information of "v2" can still be improved
> and align with DWARF v5
Right - like I said, I get that "v2" gets better, but "v1" doesn't, right? And
I imagine many/(most?) uses of type parameters in templates are more
complicated - so I'm not sure how much this helps, and will feel awkwardly
inconsistent for DWARF consumers/users?
> > Also, I'd worry that most debuggers/DWARF consumers aren't ready to handle
> > type references to template_type_parameters? So best to test this with at
> > least LLDB and GDB before we commit it.
>
> While I acknowledge that current debuggers may not fully support this DWARF
> representation, I suggest that this implementation be controlled by a switch
> until downstream tools are updated to accommodate these changes.
Yeah - not sure it rises to the level of needing a flag (flags are a bit of an
unfortunate maintenance burden - means more DWARF variety, harder to know
everyone's doing the same thing, etc... ) - but some testing ahead of time
would be good.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127654
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
