dwblaikie wrote: Be great to see D101950 picked up again, so I'm glad to hear that's being looked at.
Be nice to get some way to address this regression sooner rather than later... & yeah, I'd argue that classes derived from DWARF are not complete - nested types, member function templates, special member functions, and... static members I think - none of those things are consistently emitted in every copy of a type. So we probably shouldn't turn off the queries back into lldb for a type ever, really. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77029 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
