dblaikie added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGen/debug-info-enum.cpp:2
+// RUN: %clang -target x86_64-linux -g -S -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
+enum class E0 : signed char {
+ A0 = -128,
----------------
Could you summarize the purpose of each of these tests (possibly in a comment
above the enum in each case) - there look to be more test cases than I'd
imagine being necessary, but I haven't carefully analyzed them.
For example: I wouldn't expect to test every integer type, if the code handling
them is general enough to be demonstrated by one or two cases?
================
Comment at: test/CodeGen/debug-info-enum.cpp:6-10
+// CHECK: !DICompositeType(tag: DW_TAG_enumeration_type, name: "E0"
+// CHECK-SAME: flags: DIFlagFixedEnum
+// CHECK: !DIBasicType(name: "signed char", size: 8, encoding:
DW_ATE_signed_char)
+// CHECK: !DIEnumerator(name: "A0", value: -128)
+// CHECK: !DIEnumerator(name: "B0", value: 127)
----------------
Rather than relying on specific ordering of output, generally you should test
that the actual references across different metadata records are correct (eg:
check that the DICompositeType's member list elements are the DIEnumerators
(use named matches, rather than hardcoding the metadata node numbers))
Though, admittedly, this is a lot easier to read as-is.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGen/debug-info-enum.cpp:66
+// CHECK-SAME: baseType: ![[INT]]
+// CHECK-NOT: flags: DIFlagFixedEnum
+// CHECK: !DIEnumerator(name: "A8", value: -128)
----------------
Probably drop the "flags: " part of this NOT check - so that if other flags are
added, this won't be overly constrained (eg: if this type ended up with "flags:
X | DIFlagFixedEnum" this NOT check as-is wouldn't catch the regression)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42736
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
