[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D112374: [clang] Implement ElaboratedType sugaring for types written bare

mizvekov added a comment. @kimgr One other general comment. The way this function is implemented is quite error prone: static const NamedDecl* TypeToDeclImpl(const Type* type, bool as_written) { // Get past all the 'class' and 'struct' prefixes, and namespaces. type = RemoveElaboration

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D112374: [clang] Implement ElaboratedType sugaring for types written bare

mizvekov added a comment. In D112374#3657472 , @kimgr wrote: > I can't say what the best solution is, but this patch generates quite a lot > of work for me, and I would really hope that catching up with the new AST > does not generate even more work dow

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D129078: [LLDB][ClangExpression] Allow expression evaluation from within C++ Lambdas

Michael137 updated this revision to Diff 445269. Michael137 added a comment. - Fix assertion Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129078/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129078 Files: lldb/include/lldb/Expression/Materializer.h lldb/inc

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D112374: [clang] Implement ElaboratedType sugaring for types written bare

mizvekov added a comment. In D112374#3657472 , @kimgr wrote: > I'm coming at this from pretty far away, so there's very likely lots of > details that I'm overlooking. But it seems to me the mainline had only had an > `ElaboratedType` node if there was e

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D129078: [LLDB][ClangExpression] Allow expression evaluation from within C++ Lambdas

Michael137 updated this revision to Diff 445259. Michael137 added a comment. - Remove now redundant m_lldb_value_object Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129078/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129078 Files: lldb/include/lldb/Expressio

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D112374: [clang] Implement ElaboratedType sugaring for types written bare

kimgr added a comment. > It's the difference in knowing the type was written without any tag or > nested-name specifier, and having a type that you are not sure how it was > written. > > When we are dealing with a type which we are not sure, we would like to print > it fully qualified, with a s

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D112374: [clang] Implement ElaboratedType sugaring for types written bare

mizvekov reopened this revision. mizvekov added a comment. In D112374#3653967 , @JDevlieghere wrote: > I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble building LLDB. The LLDB website has > quite an elaborate guide with instructions in how to build LLDB: > http

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D112374: [clang] Implement ElaboratedType sugaring for types written bare

kimgr added a comment. It's a little confusing, because it now looks like _every_ `Type` in the AST is wrapped in an `ElaboratedTypeLoc` + `ElaboratedType`. IWYU's debug AST dump shows this (excerpt): tests/cxx/sizeof_reference.cc:51:8: (1) [ VarDecl ] size_t s2

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D129078: [LLDB][ClangExpression] Allow expression evaluation from within C++ Lambdas

Michael137 updated this revision to Diff 445202. Michael137 added a comment. - Add ValueObjectProvider so materializer doesn't use incorrect ValueObject when re-using UserExpressions Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129078/new/ https: