On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 2:53 PM Kyle Huey <kh...@pernos.co> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 2:20 PM David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Do you object to anything I proposed other than removing the > >> representation of the anonymous class compilers generate for lambdas? > > > > > > I'm not a /super/ fan of introducing a bunch of locals in addition to > the member descriptions - it'll be a bunch of extra DWARF that'd be nice to > avoid if we can... > > Yeah, that would be the reason to get rid of the representation of the > anonymous struct. Then we're just converting members into locals > rather than duplicating anything. Even if you really want to keep the > class itself, the members could be dropped. >
Except it's likely users will want to inspect the state of a lambda in some situations. They get passed around, stored (in std::functions or similar type-erased things, often), etc in many cases & may be important to know what they represent when not near/in a call to the lambda. So having the members described seems important. > > But putting object_pointer on the class member that stores "this" seems > problematic since that's effectively at the same scope as the real object > pointer - it'd be awkward to say there's two "this" at the same scope and > have to say that the member variable "this" shadows the real "this" in some > way. > > > > And then you want the captured variables to be in a scope that is inside > the "this" scope so they override unqualified lookup for any names that are > also members of "this"... > > > > So, yeah, I get why you/gcc developers arrived where they did. I > wouldn't mind some size analysis to see how bad the regression/cost is, > that might help inform whether it's worth trying to address it. > > Hmm. I could look at hacking something up to measure but it's not at > the top of my priority list. > Fair.
-- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
