https://github.com/labath commented:
> BTW, I have verified that this stripped down version passes all the frame > variable tests in LLDB. That's cool. Just to confirm, have you looked at replacing `target variable` as well? It uses the same language as "frame var" under the hood, which but it has a somewhat different starting point (it basically ignores the local scope and looks only at globals), which means it may need some special handling in the new parser. > I agree with Jim re the DIL language: We should only have a single language > definition, and it can be a superset of the languages it supports. So there > may be parts of it that belong to particular languages, but that does not > mean it supports those languages exclusively. This direction makes sense to me, but I think that's all the more reason to be conservative/cautious about adding new features to the language. We can't just put every possible feature of every language into it, as we'd end up with a unmaintainable mess. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95738 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
