zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54454#1296358, @jingham wrote:
> You were probably speaking loosely, but to be clear, the code you are
> changing doesn't get used for expressions - i.e. the expression command -
> unless I'm missing something.
>
> This little mini-parser is for doing things like:
>
> (lldb) frame variable foo.bar
>
> We don't use clang or the expression parser to comprehend foo.bar, we use
> GetValuesForVariableExpressionPath instead. But 'frame variable' 'target
> variable' etc. which use this are fairly limited in what they need to
> support. They just needs to handle variable references - either local
> variables or static variables, and references to children of those variables.
> No calls, no casts, no types, etc.
>
> So I don't see that the ability to handle template definition markers like
> <int> is important. I don't see how that would show up in a variable name or
> the name of one of its children.
C++14 variable templates.
template<typename T> T SomeVariable;
void foo() {
SomeVariable<int> IntVariable = x;
}
Now in this case you can simply say `frame variable IntVariable`, and it will
work fine. But what about this?
template<typename T>
constexpr T Pi = 3.1415;
In this case you might say `target variable Pi<double>` and this will currently
fail.
A slightly less contrived example:
template<typename T>
struct Foo {
static T SomeGlobal;
};
int Foo<int>::SomeGlobal = 42;
long double Foo<long double>::SomeGlobal = 42.0;
Now you might write `target variable "Foo<long double>::SomeGlobal"`
For a totally real world example, this came up for me when I tried to write
`target variable std::numeric_limits<int>::is_signed`.
If `namespace::non_template_class::some_constant` works, then there's no reason
this shouldn't also work.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54454
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
