On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > Any ideas how we can make these types of debug info tests >>> > more understandable to future devs? My only idea is copious comments, >>> but I >>> > feel like having some self-documenting system would be better and I >>> just >>> > don't have any good ideas about what it would look like. >>> >>> Yeah, I'm not sure what it would look like - essentially the test >>> would have to reference constants from LLVM to describe the flags >>> combined into the flags field. (&, better than that, the ability to >>> specify just some part of the flags value that is of interest to a >>> particular test) >>> >>> Probably just adding comments of the form: >>> >>> ; test that the flags represent the 'protected' access modifier >>> ; 258 (flags) = 42 (thing1) | 157 (thing2) | (protected) 8 >>> >>> (I haven't actually looked up what constants are combined into the >>> flags value in this case) >> >> >> That would work, an option for more self-documentation would be to have >> the >> debug output (e.g. [ DW_TAG_class_type ]) contain the access specifiers. >> > > Just brain storming: what about having the IR asm printer show the sorted > |'ed set of flags in a comment? > > Well, yeah, that's what I was saying :) -eric
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
