[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D17449: Handle the case when a variable is only valid in part of the enclosing scope

Greg Clayton via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Feb 23 10:54:16 PST 2016

clayborg added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17449#359874, @tberghammer wrote:

> I can live with that but I still think the scope information belongs to the variable and not to the DWARF expression representing it's location. As far as I see keeping the information inside the variable have lower memory impact (assuming an empty list means full scope) because we have less Variable object then DWARFExpression object and it isn't complicate other use cases of DWARFExpression where scope isn't used at all.
> So all in all I can move the information to the DWARFExpression but I think keeping them in the Variable class is better. Let me know what do you think.

I would vote for modifying the DWARFExpression only because we might eventually have other DIEs that have locations and start scope attributes that might use DWARFExpressions. But I don't see a problem with either if you really feel strongly...


More information about the lldb-commits mailing list