clayborg wrote:
> > > > Is any of it testable?
> > >
> > >
> > > Good question. Though this is mostly meant to be "NFC" (with very large
> > > quotes), I can imagine us doing something like forcing the parsing of a
> > > specific type (`type lookup <something>` ?), and then checking that the
> > > module ast (`image dump ast`) does _not_ contain specific types -- as
> > > that's basically what we're trying to achieve.
> >
> >
> > Yea that could work. But if it's going to be very painful or fragile to
> > test then don't let that hold back the PR
>
> In terms of testing, since this only delays definition DIE searching not type
> completion, we need to construct a test so that lldb finds the declaration
> DIE first without trigger a type completion on it and somehow test the
> incomplete type. The first part is tricky. I'm not sure how to achieve it.
You should be able to make a test case with two files. One file contains the
class definition and the other uses only a forward declaration. You could test
by running the binary stopping only in the one with the forward declaration. So
file 1 would be something like `foo.cpp` containing
```
struct Foo {
int value;
Foo(int v): value(v) {}
};
Foo *CreateFoo() {
return new Foo(1);
}
```
Then having `main.cpp` contain:
```
struct Foo; // Forward declare Foo
// Prototypes that don't need Foo definition
void Increment(Foo *);
Foo *CreateFoo();
int main() {
Foo *foo = CreateFoo();
return 0; // Breakpoint 1 here
}
```
Then run to "Breakpoint 1 here" and then run `frame variable foo`. Foo won't
need to be completed for this. But if you then run `frame variable *foo`, it
should cause the type to be completed and show the instance variable correctly.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90663
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
