teemperor requested changes to this revision.
teemperor added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Some comments about that this still prints 255, but otherwise this is looking
good.
(For the others: We agreed offline that adding the missing type checking for
BOOL is out of scope for this patch. So the 'fail_value = 0` thing and so on is
fine for this revision)
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Language/ObjC/Cocoa.cpp:1038
}
- uint8_t value = (real_guy_sp->GetValueAsUnsigned(0) & 0xFF);
+ uint8_t value = (real_guy_sp->GetValueAsSigned(0) & 0xFF);
switch (value) {
----------------
That still makes the value unsigned and prints `255` instead of `-1`.
Something like: `int64_t value = real_guy_sp->GetValueAsSigned(0);` should do
the trick.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/boolreference/TestFormattersBoolRefPtr.py:79
+
+ self.expect('p myField',
+ substrs=['(BoolBitFields)', 'fieldOne = NO', 'fieldTwo =
255', 'fieldThree = NO', 'fieldFour = NO', 'fieldfive = 255'])
----------------
You can do this with `expect_expr` which makes this less fragile (the
ValueCheck stuff is backported to the last stable branch, so that shouldn't
complicate backporting):
```
lang=python
# converted YES value after passing through the BOOL : 1 bitfield.
converted_yes = "-1"
# BOOL is bool instead of signed char on ARM.
if isArm:
converted_yes = "1"
self.expect_expr('myField', result_type="BoolBitFields",
result_children=[
ValueCheck(name="fieldOne", summary="NO"),
ValueCheck(name="fieldTwo", summary= converted_yes,
ValueCheck(name="fieldThree", summary="NO"),
ValueCheck(name="fieldFour", summary="NO"),
ValueCheck(name="fieldfive", summary=
converted_yes)
])
```
Also added the check for when BOOL = bool when this is on ARM (which seems to
be how Clang decides if BOOL is bool or signed char). I guess a better check
would be to check the underlying type for `BOOL` and see what it actually is,
but let's fix this properly when we add type checking to the BOOL summary
provider.
================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/boolreference/main.mm:8
+ BOOL fieldFour : 1;
+ BOOL fieldfive : 1;
+} BoolBitFields;
----------------
Nit: `fieldfive` instead of `fieldFive`.
================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/lang/objc/bitfield_ivars/TestBitfieldIvars.py:27
'field3 =', '4'])
+ self.expect('p myField',
+ substrs=['(UCBitFields)', 'fieldOne = \'\\0\'', 'fieldTwo =
\'\\x01\'', 'fieldThree = \'\\0\'', 'fieldFour = \'\\0\'', 'fieldfive =
\'\\x01\''])
----------------
Same as above with `expect_expr`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93421/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93421
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
