[lldb][NFC] Make ClangExpressionSourceCode's wrapping logic more consistent
Summary: ClangExpressionSourceCode has different ways to wrap the user expression based on which context the expression is executed in. For example, if we're in a C++ member function we put the expression inside a fake member function of a fake class to make the evaluation possible. Similar things are done for Objective-C instance/static methods. There is also a default wrapping where we put the expression in a normal function just to make it possible to execute it. The way we currently define which kind of wrapping the expression needs is based on the `wrapping_language` we keep passing to the ClangExpressionSourceCode instance. We repurposed the language type enum for that variable to distinguish the cases above with the following mapping: * language = C_plus_plus -> member function wrapping * language = ObjC -> instance/static method wrapping (`is_static` distinguished between those two). * language = C -> normal function wrapping * all other cases like C_plus_plus11, Haskell etc. make our class a no-op that does mostly nothing. That mapping is currently not documented and just confusing as the `language` is unrelated to the expression language (and in the ClangUserExpression we even pretend that it *is* the actual language, but luckily never used it for anything). Some of the code in ClangExpressionSourceCode is also obviously thinking that this is the actual language of the expression as it checks for non-existent cases such as `ObjC_plus_plus` which is not part of the mapping. This patch makes a new enum to describe the four cases above (with instance/static Objective-C methods now being their own case). It also make that enum just a member of ClangExpressionSourceCode instead of having to pass the same value to the class repeatedly. This gets also rid of all the switch-case-checks for 'unknown' language such as C_plus_plus11 as this is no longer necessary. Reviewers: labath, JDevlieghere Reviewed By: labath Subscribers: abidh Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80793
Loading
Please register or sign in to comment