Peter marked an inline comment as done. Peter added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp:5386 + if (InitInt) + InitExpr = DBuilder.createConstantValueExpression(InitInt.value()); + } else if (Init.isFloat()) ---------------- efriedma wrote: > I think we actually want the existing behavior here. Values embedded in > debug info aren't really signed or unsigned; they're interpreted by the > debugger based on the type of the value. > > Maybe it makes sense to add a new APSInt API for that? Or I guess we could > explicitly write out `Init.getInt().isSigned() ? Init.getInt().getSExtValue() > : Init.getInt().getZExtValue();` if we can't think of a reasonable name for > the new API... I have no problem with this proposed new API, we may even name it `uint64_t tryInt64Representaiton`. My main concern is that returning a value whose static type is unsigned while semantics can be signed OR unsigned is a bit inconsist. I will use something like `Init.getInt().isSigned() ? Init.getInt().getSExtValue() : Init.getInt().getZExtValue();` for now. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D140059/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D140059 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
