friss added a comment. In D67520#1670880 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67520#1670880>, @labath wrote:
> 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. I had looked at a few enums in LLVM before sending out the patch and decided to remove the "0" heuristic. I wrote the patch description with the new heuristic and then forgot to update the patch itself... I'm currently tracking down another regression that prevents Jim's use case from working, I'll refresh the patch with your comments addressed after I'm done with this. 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
