clayborg added a comment. In D138259#3940689 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D138259#3940689>, @labath wrote:
> I have a somewhat high level question. Do we actually want > (SB)Type::IsTypeComplete to return true for these kinds of types? > > For clang's benefit, we have to pretend that the AST objects are complete > (and empty), but we're not similarly restricted in our own representations of > those types, so we could theoretically just answer `false` here (and possibly > have some additional method to indicate that the type is strange in some way). If we have a forward declaration to a type, it is ok for that type to be incomplete. So for a variable like "struct Foo; Foo *foo = ...", it is ok for "Foo" to not be complete here. But if we have "Foo foo = ...;" then it isn't ok for Foo to not be complete. We need to tell the difference between "a type is incomplete and it is ok" and "a type should be complete but isn't and you are losing information that should have been available for you to debug". Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138259/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138259 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
