krisb added a comment. In D113743#3175301 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113743#3175301>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Not super surprising that lldb might not be able to deal with DWARF in this > shape - is LLDB support important to you/something you plan to work on for > this DWARF? Otherwise we might need to opt-out of this functionality when > tuning for LLDB, for instance. Unless LLDB-invested folks are interested in > doing the integration work (& even then, maybe disabling it for LLDB tuning > until that's fixed). @aprantl @JDevlieghere Thank you for the suggestion! I implemented a small workaround that makes lldb behaves like if the types have subprogram scope (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D115277), not sure I'll be able to do something better any time soon. So, if D115277 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115277> isn't acceptable, and nobody volunteers to implement this properly, the only way to proceed is to turn this functionality off for lldb. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D113743/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D113743 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
