https://github.com/labath commented:
I'm not sure that what clang is doing is completely compliant. According to the standard, DWARF expression values """can represent a value of any supported base type of the target machine. Instead of a base type, elements can have a generic type, which is an integral type that has the size of an address on the target machine and unspecified signedness""", so using a single value to represent 40 bytes is seems a bit dodgy. It's kind of obvious what you mean if the value is zero, but it gets a bit fuzzy for other values (where do you place that value, do you sign-extend it, etc.) Nevertheless, looking at this from the consumer side, I think what you've done is a reasonable interpretation of this, and is better than crashing. I'm just wondering if there isn't a simpler way to express this. See the inline comment about a possible simplification. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150149 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
