> On 2014 Sep 8, at 15:38, Frédéric Riss <fr...@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On 08 Sep 2014, at 19:31, Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> This means you will see "S<A>" as the type for your variables in the >> debugger when you view variables or children of structs/unions/classes. I >> think this is not what the user would want to see. I would rather see >> "S<int>" as the type for my variable than see "S<A>”. > > I find it more accurate for the debugger to report what has actually been put > in the code. Moreover when a typedef is used, it’s usually to make things > more readable not to hide information, thus I guess it would usually be as > informative while being more compact. The debugger needs to have a way to > describe the real type behind the abbreviated name though, we must not have > less information compared to what we have today. > > Another point: this allows the debugger to know what S<A> actually is. > Without it, the debugger only knows the canonical type. This means that > currently you can’t copy/paste a piece of code that references that kind of > template names and have it parse correctly. I /think/ that having this > information in the debug info will allow more of this to work. > > But we can agree to disagree :-) It would be great to have more people chime > and give their opinion. > > Fred
I'm in favour. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
