davide added a comment. In D83327#2136842 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83327#2136842>, @jingham wrote:
> In D83327#2136814 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83327#2136814>, @davide wrote: > > > Aside from cosmetics, I'm not entirely sure this is the correct fix. Why > > are we calling this code _at all_ if the type is incomplete? > > > Doing so allows one to write a synthetic child provider that provides the > fields for an incomplete type. This is useful if you don't have debug info > for a given type but know its layouts by some other means. Interesting, thanks. Do we have an example of when this triggers? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83327/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83327 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
