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
