clayborg added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17449#359874, @tberghammer wrote:
> I can live with that but I still think the scope information belongs to the > variable and not to the DWARF expression representing it's location. As far > as I see keeping the information inside the variable have lower memory impact > (assuming an empty list means full scope) because we have less Variable > object then DWARFExpression object and it isn't complicate other use cases of > DWARFExpression where scope isn't used at all. > > So all in all I can move the information to the DWARFExpression but I think > keeping them in the Variable class is better. Let me know what do you think. I would vote for modifying the DWARFExpression only because we might eventually have other DIEs that have locations and start scope attributes that might use DWARFExpressions. But I don't see a problem with either if you really feel strongly... http://reviews.llvm.org/D17449 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
