dawn added a comment.

Hi Sean,

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11790#221730, @spyffe wrote:

> Ooh, I'm reading the patch at the beginning of ClangUserExpression::Evaluate 
> again and it does look like this patch sets language based on the language of 
> the containing frame, and that affects what language the expression is parsed 
> in.


Yep - and I agree that this is a good thing.

> I don't think it's appropriate to force the expression parser out of 
> Objective-C or C++ mode in non-ObjC frames ...


But the parsing of ObjC conflicts with other languages.  This is a real problem.

> For the same reason I think the idea of a target-level language isn't the 
> right approach.


I agree here.

> Rather, I think there should be a setting that says "force all expressions to 
> this language by default" that the user can set if they're debugging a 
> process that prefers a particular language.


We have such a setting with target.language.

> By default, this setting would be Objective-C++


I disagree here - the default is (and should be) unknown.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11790#221770, @paulherman wrote:

> The idea is that, as I user, I do not expect the identifiers "Class" and "id" 
> to not be available - I don't think I've seen a warning or notice about that 
> when evaluating expressions.
>
> I believe that setting the language based on the current frame is a good 
> guess. I think evaluating something in the language of the current frame is 
> more common than evaluating something that is in ObjC++ and the current frame 
> is C++.


I'm totally with Paul on this, and we've discussed this same issue in 
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11482, http://reviews.llvm.org/D11173 and 
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11102.  It was Jim's belief that you would be in favor 
of using the frame too, but here it sounds like you *do* want to always be able 
to eval ObjC, which contradicts Jim and Greg.  I believe the approach I took in 
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11102 is exactly what was requested from Greg and Jim. 
 If you disagree, please talk to them, because Paul and I are stuck between two 
conflicting desires here, and we can't move forward.  Note that my patch at 
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11102 still awaits your review.

Thanks,
-Dawn


http://reviews.llvm.org/D11790



_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Reply via email to