echristo wrote: > > > I can definitely see us hashing out a higher-level path in an RFC that > > > involves more fundamental work, while still deciding that a local change > > > with caveats like this one is reasonable to go forward with in the > > > mean-time. I do think we should aim to limit the "conceptual fallout" > > > from that local change, in any case. > > > I am again not trying to just hold up progress for the sake of it, and I > > > don't imagine anyone else who had/has reservations about this patch have > > > that goal either. > > > > > > I still don't necessarily agree that this is a required step for something > > usable as it changes nothing about DIExpression to use. If you want to add > > on such facilities later we can talk about how to design those in. > > Hmm. Review comments on usable aside at the moment. Again, there were some > good points up there in the reviews. :
@slinder1 one last thought: I'm definitely not against having this a different way, but we can also take an incremental path to get there is what I'm saying. I think you seem to have some specific ideas of how this part of expressions should work and I'd love to hear your ideas. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/210850 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
