jingham added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43912#1022916, @aprantl wrote:
> > Going forward, we should transition to a model in which CompilerTypes are > > either valid or do not exist. > > I don't understand very well how the LLDB type system works so excuse my > naive questions: Does this account for lazyness? I.e., could there be value > in having an unverified type that might be sufficient for what LLDB is trying > to do with it, where validating it (which may involve recursively > materializing all of its children) might fail? I could imagine that for some > use-cases just knowing the size of a type would be sufficient. > I guess what I'm trying to say is: Are there code paths in LLDB that do > something useful with a type where `type.IsValid()==false` ? No, I don't think so. Laziness might make a type go from valid (we only got the forward type) to invalid if the attempt to complete it fails for some reason (base class missing, for instance). But a not yet fully completed type will call itself valid, not invalid. https://reviews.llvm.org/D43912 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
