labath added a comment. This looks like a really useful feature. The code seems fine, but I am wondering if we should really bail out when encountering a zero enumerator. It is not uncommon to use a special enumerator to mean "none of the above". Lldb does that occasionally (eEmulateInstructionOptionNone), and other APIs do that too (PROT_NONE, PROT_READ, PROT_WRITE, PROT_EXEC in mmap(2) for instance). I am guessing this practice is even more common for "class" enums, as those can't be implicitly constructed from integer constants.
I think it would be useful to add one or two tests with enum types where this heuristic does not kick in. Like a type which has a two-bit enumerator which is not covered by previous enumerators, or (if you decide to keep the current behavior) a type with a zero enumerator. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67520/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67520 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
