On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 3:14 PM David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.
Mmm, yes, ok. - Kyle >> >> > 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
