labath added a comment. In D78801#2007083 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78801#2007083>, @clayborg wrote:
> It would be fine to ask the lldb_private::Process class to evaluate any > unknown DWARF expression opcodes like DW_OP_WASM_location and return the > result. While that idea has occurred to me too, I am not convinced it is a good one: - it replaces one odd dependency with another one. Why should a Process need to know how to evaluate a DWARF expression? Or even that DWARF exists for that matter? This seems totally unrelated to what other Process functions are doing currently... - I am not sure it even completely removes wasm knowledge from e.g. DWARFExpression -- the class would presumably still need to know how to parse this opcode. - the interface could get very complicated if we wanted to implement typed stacks present in DWARF5 -- presumably the API would need to return the type of the result, in addition to its value. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D78801/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D78801 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
