Is it worth it to write a test that verifies the output? Otherwise LGTM.

Applying clang-format to test

This LGTM now but I will wait for @teemperor to take a look at it.

Thanks for fixing this! LGTM

Actually I was mistaken, we can see the difference for EnumDecl and ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl as well.

I think the AST dump for EnumDecl and ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl should be dumping the missing SourceLocations but I am having trouble tracking down where that should be done.

So an alternative to testing could be matching the AST output from a clang-import-test like we did here:

I don't see any regressions but I am a little uncomfortable since there are no tests. So I would feel better if this was split into three parts: Namespaces, Enums and Templates.

@davide We have a reproducer but so far it has proven difficult to narrow it down to a test case. This is serious regression b/c this leads to fields being dropped in records during expression evaluation leading to results that looks like a bug but are actually expression parsing issues.

LGTM

Minor comments, I am going to run check-lldb now.

LGTM outside of Jonas's comments.

I ran check-lldb and I hit one regression in TestFormatters.py, part of what I am seeing is as follows:

@friss we have several bugs, once of which I can reproduce but I have not been able to reduce it to a minimal case yet and the nullptr check is obviously the right to do.

Simplified the checking of symbol being a nullptr

Done with first round.

Updating after https://reviews.llvm.org/D46551 landed

@teemperor @jingham @clayborg I believe now that https://reviews.llvm.org/D46551 is landed the performance concerns should be addressed.

Thank you! LGTM, in general we avoid "large" refactoring changes to avoid polluting the blame list but the changes are relatively local and they are good changes that can catch real bugs in the future. I would like a second set of eyes though.

Modifying copy contructor to be act more intuitively.

Testing both passing as and argument and returning

@friss added second test

@teemperor good call, that is indeed simpler and yes I did not intend that delete.

• Simplifying test
• Fixing unintended deleted test

@aprantl @teemperor I believe I addressed your comments.

This is a good change!

Changed to reflect comments.

• Added comments to test to explain what it is doing.
• Formatting and other minor fixes.

LGTM

@friss makes sense, updated comment.

Updated comment to be more precise.

Fred is correct, I mistakenly thought the parts of the test that were working were being covered elsewhere but that is not the case. So I have reworked this change to instead of skipping the whole test to comment out the inline expressions that are specifically broken.

@friss updated the change to only effect those specifically broken.

Added test

@rsmith I tagged you in this change in case we are missing any implications in using DW_CC_pass_by_reference to do setArgPassingRestrictions(clang::RecordDecl::APK_CannotPassInRegs);

Small updated to test, remove use of printf and associated include.

@friss I had to rework the tests a little but they now cover Objective-C static and non-static methods as well as C and C++.

-Adjusting tests to ensure coverage of Objecive-C static and non-static methods and C and C++

@friss I believe I have addressed your comments

Addressing comments:

• Now applies to all languages not just C++
• When adding locals be more selective on filtering i.e. only filter self and _cmd for Objective C etc...

LGTM

@stella.stamenova I committed a fix, please let me know if this does not address the regression: