search for: d37311

...later on. I propose that we introduce DW_OP_LLVM_memory for this purpose, and then we transition from dbg.declare to dbg.value+DW_OP_LLVM_memory. Initially I believed that DW_OP_deref was the way to say this with existing DWARF expression opcodes, but I implemented that in https://reviews.llvm.org/D37311 and learned more about how DWARF expressions work. When a debugger begins evaluating a DWARF expression, it assumes that the resulting value will be a pointer to the variable in memory. For a debugger, this makes sense, because debug builds put things in memory and even after optimization many vari...

...later on. I propose that we introduce DW_OP_LLVM_memory for this purpose, and then we transition from dbg.declare to dbg.value+DW_OP_LLVM_memory. Initially I believed that DW_OP_deref was the way to say this with existing DWARF expression opcodes, but I implemented that in https://reviews.llvm.org/D37311 and learned more about how DWARF expressions work. When a debugger begins evaluating a DWARF expression, it assumes that the resulting value will be a pointer to the variable in memory. For a debugger, this makes sense, because debug builds put things in memory and even after optimization many vari...

...later on. I propose that we introduce DW_OP_LLVM_memory for this purpose, and then we transition from dbg.declare to dbg.value+DW_OP_LLVM_memory. Initially I believed that DW_OP_deref was the way to say this with existing DWARF expression opcodes, but I implemented that in https://reviews.llvm.org/D37311 and learned more about how DWARF expressions work. When a debugger begins evaluating a DWARF expression, it assumes that the resulting value will be a pointer to the variable in memory. For a debugger, this makes sense, because debug builds put things in memory and even after optimization many vari...