aprantl added a comment. To me a VLA fulfills all properties of a dynamic type so not modeling it as a dynamic type feels backwards to me. But not having to deal with temporary clang types might be worth the trade-off.
> The only other thing you would need to change to get the usability back in > check when doing things in GetNumChildren() would be to have the function > that gets the typename take on optional execution context for dynamic types. > The ValueObject can easily pass its execution context when getting the > typename. Anyone who doesn't would continue to get the "int []" as the > typename which isn't really lying either way. Thoughts? I didn't realize that the string `int []` is produced by ValueObject itself; I think this makes this option more palatable to me. I'll give it a try. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53530 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
