dblaikie added a comment. In D106585#2902588 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106585#2902588>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Preserving existing behavior sounds OK - maybe some comment about that it > might be good to remove so the next person who looks at it knows there's > something not-quite-fully-reasoned here (& the comment about GCC's > representation choice still seems off - GCC does use the signedness of the > enumerators, not only the enumeration). @rnk - any thoughts on the comments? (the existing comment about GCC's emission seems incorrect to me (or subtly correct, but probably easy to misunderstand) - GCC does use different DWARF encodings for negative enumerators, depending on the enumerator) And seems like a comment about how this is maybe confusing/in need of some more touch-up might be handy for the next reader? (specifically that the current DWARF backend ignores the "isUnsigned" flag entirely, and relies on the signedness of the enumerator's underlying type instead - so maybe we could remove the isUnsigned flag?) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106585/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106585 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
