Michael137 wrote: I haven't done an in-depth review of the patch yet but my first instinct here is that this looks like a lot of work for LLDB which the compiler has already done, so we ideally don't want to repeat. Where is this actually an issue from a user perspective? In the example you gave one could just cast to the appropriate enum type and get the bit-mask style presentation: ``` (lldb) expr (UnscopedEnum) (-enum_one) (UnscopedEnum) $0 = One | 0xfffffffe ``` Not that this shouldn't be fixed, just weighing of the amount of complexity added here versus the benefit.
Also, is this promotion-type something that can be encoded in DWARF? GCC generates the same DWARF as Clang here. What happens if we make the type of the `DW_TAG_variable`s be `UnscopedEnum` instead of `int`? I guess that wouldn't help with ``` (lldb) expr UnscopedEnum::One + 1 ``` https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115005 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
