dang added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/SymbolGraph/Serialization.cpp:343 + if (!Enum) + return; + ---------------- zixuw wrote: > dang wrote: > > Quick design question: Do we want to be silently failing in these > > situations (especially since this shouldn't be happening)? Let me know what > > you think. > I'm using this check to intentionally skip symbols that we do not want to > spit out, for example unconditionally unavailable symbols, or after we have > support for typedef records, anonymous enum decls that's declared with a > `typedef` so that we don't have duplicate information, etc. > `Optional<Object> serializeAPIRecord` does this check now, and if we > `Serializer::shouldSkip` it, `None` will be returned. So it is expected, not > really silently failing. Yeah that makes sense. If we are doing the check in `serializeAPIRecord` it might be worth not calling `serializeEnumRecord` at all for the sake of keeping the code handling these kinds of situation in a single place. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D121873/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D121873 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
