jakehehrlich added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-doc/BitcodeWriter.cpp:407
+
+void ClangDocBinaryWriter::writeBitstream(const EnumInfo &I,
+ BitstreamWriter &Stream,
----------------
juliehockett wrote:
> jakehehrlich wrote:
> > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > juliehockett wrote:
> > > > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > > > Hmm, common pattern again
> > > > > ```
> > > > > void ClangDocBinaryWriter::writeBitstream(const <TYPENAME> &I,
> > > > > BitstreamWriter &Stream,
> > > > > bool writeBlockInfo) {
> > > > > if (writeBlockInfo) emitBlockInfoBlock(Stream);
> > > > > StreamSubBlock Block(Stream, BI_<ENUM_NAMETYPE>_BLOCK_ID);
> > > > > ...
> > > > > }
> > > > > ```
> > > > > Could be solved if a mapping from `TYPENAME` ->
> > > > > `BI_<ENUM_NAMETYPE>_BLOCK_ID` can be added.
> > > > > If LLVM would be using C++14, that'd be easy, but with C++11, it
> > > > > would require whole new class (although with just a single static
> > > > > variable).
> > > > Do you want me to try to write that class, or leave it as it is?
> > > It would be something like: (total guesswork, literally just wrote it
> > > here, like rest of the snippets)
> > > ```
> > > template <typename TypeInfo>
> > > struct MapFromTypeToEnumerator {
> > > static const BlockId id;
> > > };
> > >
> > > template <>
> > > struct MapFromTypeToEnumerator<NamespaceInfo> {
> > > static const BlockId id = BI_NAMESPACE_BLOCK_ID;
> > > };
> > > void ClangDocBitcodeWriter::writeBitstream(const NamespaceInfo &I) {
> > > EMITINFO(NAMESPACE)
> > > }
> > > ...
> > >
> > > template <typename TypeInfo>
> > > void ClangDocBitcodeWriter::writeBitstream(const TypeInfo &I, bool
> > > writeBlockInfo) {
> > > if (writeBlockInfo) emitBlockInfoBlock();
> > > StreamSubBlockGuard Block(Stream,
> > > MapFromTypeToEnumerator<TypeInfo>::id);
> > > writeBitstream(I);
> > > }
> > > ```
> > > Uhm, now that i have wrote it, it does not look as ugly as i though it
> > > would look...
> > > So maybe try integrating that, i *think* it is a bit cleaner?
> > If we know the set of types then it should just be a static member of every
> > *Info type. Then the mapping is just TYPENAME::id
> @jakehehrlich The issue with that is that it would mix writer implementation
> details into the representation, which at this point has no knowledge of the
> writer. We can break that, but is that the best option?
Probably not, I didn't think about that.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41102
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
