================
@@ -18,6 +18,22 @@
namespace lldb_private::dil {
+static lldb::ValueObjectSP
+ArrayToPointerConversion(lldb::ValueObjectSP valobj,
+ std::shared_ptr<ExecutionContextScope> ctx) {
+ assert(valobj->IsArrayType() &&
+ "an argument to array-to-pointer conversion must be an array");
+
+ uint64_t addr = valobj->GetLoadAddress();
+ llvm::StringRef name = "result";
+ ExecutionContext exe_ctx;
+ ctx->CalculateExecutionContext(exe_ctx);
+ return ValueObject::CreateValueObjectFromAddress(
+ name, addr, exe_ctx,
+
valobj->GetCompilerType().GetArrayElementType(ctx.get()).GetPointerType(),
+ /* do_deref */ false);
+}
+
----------------
jimingham wrote:
Is there any downside to the second option? It seems to me the general
philosophy here is to have DIL do as little as possible and the type system as
much as possible, since then we're asking the entity that actually knows what
it is doing...
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134428
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
