================
@@ -377,7 +377,12 @@ ParsedDWARFTypeAttributes::ParsedDWARFTypeAttributes(const
DWARFDIE &die) {
break;
case DW_AT_object_pointer:
- object_pointer = form_value.Reference();
+ // GetAttributes follows DW_AT_specification.
+ // DW_TAG_subprogram definitions and declarations may both
+ // have a DW_AT_object_pointer. Don't overwrite the one
+ // we parsed for the definition with the one from the declaration.
----------------
Michael137 wrote:
An alternative would be to say that `DW_AT_object_pointer` doesn't apply if we
found it through a specification/abstract_origin ([like we do for
`DW_AT_sibling` and `DW_AT_declaration`
already](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d2e7ee77d33e8b3be3b1d4e9bc5bc4c60b62b554/lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugInfoEntry.cpp#L312-L322)).
The object pointer points to a child DIE, so I don't know why we would want to
include it in the list of attributes when getting attributes of the definition.
That feels like a more consistent/less intrusive approach. Wdyt?
If we ever find that we do for some reason want to include both
`DW_AT_obejct_pointer`s in `GetAttributes`, then we can change it then?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123089
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
