On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Robinson, Paul < paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> The (limited) feedback I've had from the committee is along these lines. > > If the program uses the type name "S<A>" for something, the DWARF should > fully describe the type named "S<A>" because that's the name > as-in-the-source-program. If you use both S<A> and S<int> in the program > in different places, then you need to describe both in the DWARF. > To the best of my knowledge, having spent the better part of 6 months studying the size of LLVM's debug info, this is simply not a workable solution. I doubt any DWARF producer of C++ would make this the default behavior. > There is sadly no standard way to associate the two as aliases. Yes in C++ > they are the same; in standard DWARF they are not. > The typedef S<A> => S<int> hack might work [if the debugger can tolerate > that]. It is obviously not a real typedef. You could mark it artificial as > an indication that something funny is going on (artificial typedefs being > highly atypical). > > The DW_AT_specification hack is just wrong, because neither S<A> nor > S<int> is completing the other. > > > > I need to step back from the typedef hack. I believe our debugger throws > away the <brackets> on the theory that it can reconstruct them from > template-parameter children; that is, the <bracket> part of the name is > redundant. The typedef hack does not provide those children, and the > <brackets> are not redundant, so this is likely to be a problem for us. > Feh. I'd forgotten about that detail when I started liking the typedef > hack. Yes, this means I don't have a suggestion, apart from emitting > things redundantly as needed to preserve as-in-the-source-program. > > > > Here's a bizarre data point. Going back to at least 3.2, Clang has > emitted S<int> instead of S<A>. But with my vector example, it used to use > the typedef name up through 3.4. That changed in 3.5, where the type name > 'int4' has entirely disappeared from the DWARF. > Yep, I think maybe I fixed that somewhere along the way - debug size used to be a real problem for LLVM. I think I fixed that before I was looking at size though, just because it broke GDB test cases - the names were different so basic debugger expressions didn't work between translation units, IIRC. I'd have to go back & check what the particular failure/bug/motivation was, but I think it was a name mismatch between libstdc++ (built with GCC) debug info and clang debug info since we weren't using the canonical name. [Yeah, went and checked - the issue was that clang would produce a declaration of "basic_string<char>" which, since it had a distinct name from the debug info for the definition (compiled into libstdc++, built by GCC) for "basic_string<char, traits and allocator goop>" the debugger didn't identify these as being the same type and thus printing an expression of the declared type couldn't find the guts of how basic_string works and the pretty printer would fail] > Clearly that's a bug; the type name needs to be in there somewhere. > > > > One more thing: > > > > it'd be good to figure out how to deal with all possible names for the > type, even the ones the user hasn't written (eg: typedef int A; typedef int > B; and make sure that the debugger can handle S<int>, S<A> and S<B> in > their code, even though the user only wrote one of those in the source). > > > > The answer to this "how to deal" question is with debugger smarts, not > more complicated DWARF. DWARF is about the program as-written and > as-compiled, not about > anything-the-user-might-conceivably-try-to-write-in-the-debugger. Handling > this in DWARF is a combinatorial nightmare, for completely speculative > purposes. Not gonna happen. > The question is whether the debugger needs more information from the DWARF to do its job. (& whether the compiler/linker/etc will have trouble due to excessively large debug info... and whether clang debug info interoperates with GCC debug info (at least for libstdc++, generally compiled with GCC, this is extra important)) > --paulr > > > > *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblai...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:03 PM > > *To:* Robinson, Paul > *Cc:* llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu; Greg Clayton; Frédéric Riss; > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu; jing...@apple.com > *Subject:* Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC][PATCH] Keep un-canonicalized template > types in the debug information > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Robinson, Paul < > paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> wrote: > > David, > > Sorry, thought you were protesting the typedef idea as interfering with > deduplication or type-unit commonality. > > > > So to recap, if we have source like this: > > > > typedef int A; > > template<typename T> struct S { T member; }; > > S<A> s_a; > > > > then we'll get > > > > DW_TAG_typedef > > DW_AT_name "A" > > DW_AT_type -> int > > > > DW_TAG_structure_type > > DW_AT_name "S<A>" > > DW_TAG_member > > DW_AT_name "member" > > DW_AT_type -> int // or the typedef for "A" ? > > DW_TAG_template_type_parameter > > DW_AT_name "T" > > DW_AT_type -> (the typedef for "A") > > > > Are you suggesting putting the rest of S<int> here too? Or how would S<A> > refer to S<int> for the rest of the implementation? > > > > > > DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_name "s_a" > > DW_AT_type -> (the above structure_type) > > > > Ah, no - just a typedef of the template: > > 1: DW_TAG_structure_type // the debug info we already produce today > (S<int>) > ... > > 2: DW_TAG_typedef > DW_AT_name "S<A>" > DW_AT_type (1) > > And honestly, the variable would still be of type (1). > > Duplicating the entire type for each way of naming the same type is, I'm > fairly sure, not going to work for debuggers today. If someone wants to > propose a way of encoding this that will need new code/support from > debuggers, etc, then I feel the right venue to discuss that is the DWARF > committee - because you'll need buy-in from producers and consumers. > Without having that discussion, I believe just providing a typedef of the > template specialization is probably a benefit to users. > > If we want to talk about a 'right' representation of this for DWARF that > would necessitate more substantial changes to both DWARF producers and > consumers... I think it'll be a bit more involved than even what you're > proposing. If we're going to deal with that, it'd be good to figure out how > to deal with all possible names for the type, even the ones the user hasn't > written (eg: typedef int A; typedef int B; and make sure that the debugger > can handle S<int>, S<A> and S<B> in their code, even though the user only > wrote one of those in the source). > > > > > > Yes? > > --paulr > > > > *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblai...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:09 PM > *To:* Robinson, Paul > *Cc:* llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu; Greg Clayton; Frédéric Riss; > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu; jing...@apple.com > *Subject:* Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC][PATCH] Keep un-canonicalized template > types in the debug information > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Robinson, Paul < > paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> wrote: > > >From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblai...@gmail.com] > >On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Robinson, Paul < > paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> wrote: > >> From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblai...@gmail.com] > >> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Robinson, Paul < > paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> wrote: > >> > > From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblai...@gmail.com] > >> > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Robinson, Paul < > paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > On 09 Sep 2014, at 00:01, jing...@apple.com wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > From the debugger's standpoint, the functional concern is > that if you do > >> > > > > > something more real, like: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > typedef int A; > >> > > > > > > template <typename T> > >> > > > > > > struct S > >> > > > > > > { > >> > > > > > > T my_t; > >> > > > > > > }; > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I want to make sure that the type of my_t is given as "A" > not as "int". > >> > > > > > The reason for that is that it is not uncommon to have data > formatters > >> > > > > > that trigger off the typedef name. This happens when you use > some common > >> > > > > > underlying type like "int" but the value has some special > meaning when it > >> > > > > > is formally an "A", and you want to use the data formatters > to give it an > >> > > > > > appropriate presentation. Since the data formatters work by > matching type > >> > > > > > name, starting from the most specific on down, it is > important that the > >> > > > > > typedef name be preserved. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > However, it would be really odd to see: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (lldb) expr -T -- my_s > >> > > > > > > (S<int>) $1 = { > >> > > > > > > (A) my_t = 5 > >> > > > > > > } > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > instead of: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (lldb) expr -T -- my_s > >> > > > > > > (S<A>) $1 = { > >> > > > > > > (A) my_t = 5 > >> > > > > > > } > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > so I am in favor of presenting the template parameter type > with the most > >> > > > > > specific name it was given in the overall template type name. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > OK, we get this wrong today. I’ll try to look into it. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > What’s your take on the debug info representation for the > templated class > >> > > > > > type? The tentative patch introduces a typedef that declares > S<A> as a > >> > > > > > typedef for S<int>. The typedef doesn’t exist in the code, > thus I find it > >> > > > > > a bit of a lie to the debugger. I was more in favour of > something like : > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > DW_TAG_variable > >> > > > > > DW_AT_type: -> DW_TAG_structure_type > >> > > > > > DW_AT_name: S<A> > >> > > > > > DW_AT_specification: -> DW_TAG_structure_type > >> > > > > > DW_AT_name: S<int> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > This way the canonical type is kept in the debug information, > and the > >> > > > > > declaration type is a real class type aliasing the canonical > type. But I’m > >> > > > > > not sure debuggers can digest this kind of aliasing. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Fred > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Why introduce the extra typedef? S<A> should have a template > parameter > >> > > > > entry pointing to A which points to int. The info should all > be there > >> > > > > without any extra stuff. Or if you think something is missing, > please > >> > > > > provide a more complete example. > >> > > > My immediate concern here would be either loss of information or > bloat > >> > > > when using that with type units (either bloat because each > instantiation > >> > > > with differently spelled (but identical) parameters is treated as > a separate > >> > > > type - or loss when the types are considered the same and all but > one are > >> > > > dropped at link time) > >> > > You'll need to unpack that more because I'm not following the > concern. > >> > > If the typedefs are spelled differently, don't they count as > different types? > >> > > DWARF wants to describe the program as-written, and there's no > S<int> written > >> > > in the program. > >> > > > >> > > Maybe not in this TU, but possibly in another TU? Or by the user. > >> > > > >> > > void func(S<int>); > >> > > ... > >> > > typedef int A; > >> > > S<A> s; > >> > > func(s); // calls the same function > >> > > > >> > > The user probably wants to be able to call void func with S<int> or > S<A> > >> > Sure. > >> > > >> > > (and, actually, in theory, with S<B> where B is another typedef of > int, but > >> > > that'll /really/ require DWARF consumer support and/or new DWARF > wording). > >> > > >> > Not DWARF wording. DWARF doesn't say when you can and can't call > something; > >> > that's a debugger feature and therefore a debugger decision. > >> > > >> What I mean is we'd need some new DWARF to help explain which types are > >> equivalent (or the debugger would have to do a lot of spelunking to try > >> to find structurally equivalent types - "S<B>" and "S<A>", go look > through > >> their DW_TAG_template_type_params, see if they are typedefs to the same > >> underlying type, etc... ) > >> > > >> > > >> > > We can't emit these as completely independent types - it would be > verbose > >> > > (every instantiation with different typedefs would be a whole > separate type > >> > > in the DWARF, not deduplicated by type units, etc) and wrong > >> > > >> > Yes, "typedef int A;" creates a synonym/alias not a new type, so S<A> > and S<int> > >> > describe the same type from the C++ perspective, so you don't want > two complete > >> > descriptions with different names, because that really would be > describing them > >> > as separate types. What wrinkles my brow is having S<int> be the > "real" > >> > description even though it isn't instantiated that way in the > program. I wonder > >> > if it should be marked artificial... but if you do instantiate S<int> > in another > >> > TU then you don't want that. Huh. It also seems weird to have this: > >> > DW_TAG_typedef > >> > DW_AT_name "S<A>" > >> > DW_AT_type -> S<int> > >> > but I seem to be coming around to thinking that's the most viable way > to have > >> > a single actual instantiated type, and still have the correct names > of things > >*mostly* correct; this still loses "A" as the type of the data member. > > > >For the DW_TAG_template_type_parameter, you mean? No, it wouldn't. > > > > (as a side note, if you do actually have a data member (or any other > mention) of > >the template parameter type, neither Clang nor GCC really get that > 'right' - > >"template<typename T> struct foo { T t; }; foo<int> f;" - in both Clang > and GCC, > >the type of the 't' member of foo<int> is a direct reference to the "int" > DIE, not > >to the DW_TAG_template_type_parameter for "T" -> int) > > Huh. And DWARF doesn't say you should point to the > template_type_parameter... > I thought it did, but no. Okay, so nothing is lost, but it feels desirable > to me, that uses of the template parameter should cite it in the DWARF as > well. > But I guess we can leave that part of the debate for another time. > > > > >Crud. > >But I haven't come up with a way to get that back without basically > instantiating > >S<A> and S<int> separately. > > > >> > > >> Yep - it's the only way I can think of giving this information in a way > that's > >> likely to work with existing consumers. It would probably be harmless > to add > >> DW_AT_artificial to the DW_TAG_typedef, if that's any help to any debug > info > >> consumer. > > > >Hmmm no, S<A> is not the artificial name; > > > >It's not the artificial name, but it is an artificial typedef. > > If the source only says S<A>, then the entire S<int> description is > artificial, > because *that's not what the user wrote*. So both the typedef and the > class type > are artificial. Gah. Let's forget artificial here. > > > > >some debuggers treat DW_AT_artificial > >as meaning "don't show this to the user." > > > >In some sense that's what I want - we never wrote the typedef in the > source > >so I wouldn't want to see it rendered in the "list of typedefs" (or even > >probably in the list of types, maybe). > > > >But S<A> is the name we *do* want to > >show to the user. > > > >Maybe. Sometimes. But there could be many such aliases for the type. (& > many > >more that were never written in the source code, but are still valid in > the > >source language (every other typedef of int, every other way to name the > int > >type (decltype, etc))) > > But you *lose* cases where the typedef is the *same* *everywhere*. And in > many cases that typedef is a valuable thing, not the trivial rename we've > been bandying about. This is a more real example: > > typedef int int4 __attribute__((ext_vector_type(4))); > template<typename T> struct TypeTraits {}; > template<> > struct TypeTraits<int4> { > static unsigned MysteryNumber; > }; > unsigned TypeTraits<int4>::MysteryNumber = 3U; > > Displaying "TypeTraits<int __attribute__((ext_vector_type(4)))>" is much > worse than "TypeTraits<int4>" (and not just because it's shorter). > More to the point, having the debugger *complain* when the user says > something like "ptype TypeTraits<int4>" is a problem. > > Reducing debug-info size is a worthy goal, but don't degrade the debugging > experience to get there. > > > > I'm not sure which part of what I've said seemed like a suggestion to > degrade the debugging experience to minimize debug info size (the > proposition that we should use a typedef or other alias on top of the > canonical type? It wouldn't cause "ptype TypeTraits<int4>" to complain - > indeed for GDB ptyping a typedef gives /exactly/ the same output as if you > ptype the underlying type - it doesn't even mention that there's a typedef > involved: > > typedef fooA foo<int>; > > > > (keyboard shortcuts are hard - accidentally sent before I finished) > > (gdb) ptype fooA > > type = struct foo<int> [with T = int] { > > <no data fields> > > } > > But in any case, I think what I'm saying boils down to: > > Short of changing debug info consumers, I think the only thing we can do > is DW_TAG_typedef. That'll work for existing consumers. > > Anything else will need possibly new DWARF wording, or at least an > agreement between a variety of debug info consumers and producers that some > new cliche/use of existing DWARF be used to describe these situations. > > I could be wrong - if someone wants to try prototyping the > DW_TAG_structure_type proposal Fred had and see if existing debuggers work > with that, sure. > > I'm not opposed to someone coming up with a standardizable more > descriptive form than DW_TAG_typedef, but that conversation probably needs > to happen with the DWARF Committee more than the LLVM community. > > - David > > > > > > > > --paulr > > > > > > > >> That said, I'm not opposed to proposing something to DWARF to define > some more > >> 'proper' way to describe this. > > > >Yah. I've been thinking about the DW_AT_specification idea too, which > would be > >something like this: > > DW_TAG_class_type > > DW_AT_name "S<A>" > > DW_AT_specification -> S<int> > > > > DW_TAG_template_type_parameter > > DW_AT_name "T" > > DW_AT_type -> A > > > >The problem with this is you don't know where T is used in the template, > so > >you *still* don't know when to use A as the type of "field". Also it's > kind > >of an abuse of DW_AT_specification. If we can't get A as the type of > "field" > >then the typedef is more straightforward and understandable. > > > >It's still a lot of DWARF to emit for every way the user has named the > template > >& I'm not sure how much value it provides - are there use cases you have > in mind > >that would benefit from the increased fidelity of knowing which template > argument > >corresponds to the way the user wrote the type. > > > > (& what would we emit if the user named the type in some other more > exotic way: > >int func(); template<typename T> struct S { }; ... S<decltype(func())> s; > ) > > > > > >Maybe I'll pop a note to the DWARF committee for a broader set of > opinions. > > > >> > >> One other open question is then, when, if ever, to reference the > DW_TAG_typedef > >> rather than the underlying type? Do we just reference it whenever the > user > >> writes using that name? > >> > >> void f(S<A>); > >> ... > >> void f(S<B>) { ... } > >> > >> etc... (this would be just as possible/we could maybe treat it the same > as if > >> the user wrote "void f(A); ... void f(B) { ... }") > > > >That's what I would do, and I think is more conformant to the DWARF spec. > >--paulr > > > >> > >> > (because DWARF is all about the name "as it appears in the source > program.") > >> > > >> > > (the debugger wouldn't know these are actually the same type so > wouldn't > >> > > allow function calls, etc). > >> > > > >> > > - David > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Jim > >> > > > > > >> > > >> On Sep 8, 2014, at 12:38 PM, 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 > >> > > >> > >> > > >>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> > wrote: > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Eric Christopher < > echri...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith > >> > > <dexonsm...@apple.com> wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> On 2014 Sep 5, at 16:01, Frédéric Riss <fr...@apple.com> > wrote: > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> I couldn’t even find a subject expressing exactly what this > patch > >> > > is about… First of all, it’s meant to start a discussion, and I’m > not > >> > > proposing it for inclusion right now. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> The issue I’m trying to address is that template types are > always > >> > > canonicalized when emitted in the debug information (this is the > desugar() > >> > > call in UnwrapTypeForDebugInformation). > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> This means that if the developer writes: > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> typedef int A; > >> > > >>>>>> template <typename T> > >> > > >>>>>> struct S {}; > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> S<A> var; > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> The variable var will have type S<int> and not S<A>. In this > simple > >> > > example, it’s not that much of an issue, but for heavily templated > code, > >> > > the full expansion might be really different from the original > >> > > declaration. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> The attached patch makes us emit an intermediate typedef for > the > >> > > variable’s type: > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> 0x0000002a: DW_TAG_variable [2] > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( > >> > > .debug_str[0x00000032] = “var") > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0040 => > >> > > {0x00000040}) > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_external [DW_FORM_flag] (0x01) > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_file [DW_FORM_data1] (0x01) > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_line [DW_FORM_data1] (8) > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_location [DW_FORM_block1] (<0x09> 03 70 6c > 00 00 > >> > > 00 00 00 00 ) > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> 0x00000040: DW_TAG_typedef [3] > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x004b => > >> > > {0x0000004b}) > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( > >> > >.debug_str[0x00000035] = “S<A>") > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_file [DW_FORM_data1] (0x01) > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_line [DW_FORM_data1] (6) > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> 0x0000004b: DW_TAG_structure_type [4] * > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( > >> > >.debug_str[0x0000003e] = “S<int>") > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_byte_size [DW_FORM_data1] (0x01) > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_file [DW_FORM_data1] (0x01) > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_line [DW_FORM_data1] (6) > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Which basically is what I want, although I don’t like that it > >> > > introduces a typedef where there is none in the code. I’d prefer > that to > >> > > be: > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> DW_TAG_variable > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_type: -> DW_TAG_structure_type > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name: S<A> > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_specification: -> DW_TAG_structure_type > >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name: S<int> > >> > > >>>>>> … > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> The patch also has the nice property of omitting the > defaulted > >> > > template arguments in the first level typedef. For example you get > >> > > vector<A> instead of vector<int, std::__1::allocator<int> >. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> If you specify `vector<int>` in C++ do you get that instead of > >> > > >>>>> `vector<int, std::__1::allocator<int>>`? > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Yeah, I mentioned this as possibly causing problems with > debuggers > >> > > or other consumers, but I don't have any proof past "ooooo scary!”. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> Well, [+lldb-dev], could this confuse debuggers? :-) > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> -- adrian > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> That said, I like the idea personally :) > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> -eric > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Now there is one thing I really don’t like about the patch. > In > >> > > order not to emit typedefs for types that don’t need it, I use > string > >> > > comparison between the desugared and the original type. I haven’t > >> > > quantified anything, but doing the construction of the type name > for every > >> > > template type and then comparing it to decide to use it or not > seems like > >> > > a big waste. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Maybe someone on cfe-dev knows a better way. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Thoughts? > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> <template-arg-typedefs.diff> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Fred > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >> > > >>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list > >> > > >>>>>> llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu > >> > > >>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> > > >>>> lldb-dev mailing list > >> > > >>>> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > >> > > >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> lldb-dev mailing list > >> > > >> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > >> > > >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > llvm-commits mailing list > >> > > llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu > >> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > llvm-commits mailing list > >> > llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu > >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
