dblaikie added a comment. FWIW I agree that based on the current DWARF LLVM and GCC produce there's no way to allow users to default construct structs in C++11 (where non-static data member initializers were added) or above in the absence of a user-provided constructor - I don't think it'd be unreasonable to attach a null/empty default_value for "has an initializer but I won't tell you what it is" - chances are plumbing this through Clang/LLVM metadata, etc, might go most of the way to plumbing through at least simple default initializer values too - so you might get the simple constant non-empty values for free here anyway, which would be nice/allow some default/implicit member initialization.
But if you're preparing to go down that route, a thread on llvm-dev with all the usual debug info cohort would be worthwhile to check this. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79811/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79811 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
