jingham requested changes to this revision. jingham added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
So before getting into the details of the patch, there's a structural bit it would be nice to fix. When I was separating out bits of the Expression machinery, I assumed that even though all expression parsers would use different front-ends to llvm, they would all use llvm & the llvm JIT to run the expressions. Your Go expression parser doesn't work that way. However, the correct thing to do, then, is the make UserExpression the empty base class, then what used to be in UserExpression should go in LLVMUserExpression, then ClangUserExpression derives from LLVMUserExpression, but GoUserExpression derives from UserExpression directly. That structure will make it easier to share the LLVM back end bits of expression running machinery, which really shouldn't go in ClangUserExpression since it isn't Clang specific. Would you mind reworking it this way? Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D13073 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
