compnerd marked 4 inline comments as done.
compnerd added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/APINotes/APINotesYAMLCompiler.cpp:439
+ static void enumeration(IO &IO, EnumExtensibilityKind &EEK) {
+ IO.enumCase(EEK, "none", EnumExtensibilityKind::None);
+ IO.enumCase(EEK, "open", EnumExtensibilityKind::Open);
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> martong wrote:
> > compnerd wrote:
> > > martong wrote:
> > > > Hmm, why do we need "none"? Can't we interpret the non-existence as
> > > > "none"?
> > > At the very least we need it for compatibility - this is already a
> > > shipping feature. However, nullability is also not completely annotated.
> > > So, there is some benefit in tracking the explicit none vs missing.
> > `Optional<EnumExtensibilityAttr::Kind>` ?
> That representation could work, let me see if I can get `YAML::IO` to provide
> something which would be compatible.
The representation is already `Optional<EnumExtensibilityAttr::Kind>`, but we
need to map the user providing `none` back to a `llvm::None` so this will still
need to be listed as is.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88859/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88859
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
