clayborg added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBType.h:212
+ /// Returns true for types that were incomplete in the debug information but
+ /// should have been a complete. When the debugger constructs types, we must
+ /// have enough information to reconstruct a type in a language specific AST
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> a complete? (missing word)
yep, will remove the "a" here..
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBType.h:223
+ /// of the debug information in a debug session, possibly even in another
+ /// executable or shared library's debug information. If we require a full
+ /// definition for a type but we can't find ony, we must forcefully complete
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> Could you replace all instances of "we" with something more concrete? It
> sounds like this paragraph really describes behaviors of TypeSystemClang?
It is describing what -flimit-debug-info does, so yes, this is very clang
specific. But right now we are showing these omitted types to the user as if
they are fine, and they are not, so the user and or UI can and should convey
this somehow. Not a great user experience when someone enables
-flimit-debug-info, not on purpose as this is the default on non darwin
targets, and they get a subpar debugging experience. We run into this all the
time with linux and Android and the users think the debugger doesn't know how
to show variables, so we need to let them know what is going on somehow.
That being said, I can probably make this paragraph a lot simpler. Open to
suggestions.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBType.h:237
+ /// need to be forcefully completed
+ bool IsTypeForcefullyCompleted();
+
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> Why not `IsIncomplete()`?
We already have IsTypeComplete() above, which indicates that something is a
forward declaration. The IsTypeComplete() will return true for these forcefully
completed types since they appear to be complete. I am open to suggestions on
better naming, I was just forwarding our internal function names, but for the
API a better name might make more sense. I can't think of any off hand.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp:601
+ if (GetCompilerType().IsForcefullyCompleted()) {
+ destination = "<incomplete type>";
+ return true;
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> I don't ha
I am open to suggestions on what people want this string to be.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138259/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138259
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
