[lldb][NFC] Make ClangExpressionSourceCode's wrapping logic more consistent

Authored by teemperor on Jun 1 2020, 1:28 AM.


[lldb][NFC] Make ClangExpressionSourceCode's wrapping logic more consistent

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