erichkeane added a comment. In D122248#3403636 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248#3403636>, @yihanaa wrote:
> In D122248#3403518 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248#3403518>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D122248#3403478 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248#3403478>, @erichkeane >> wrote: >> >>> If it is ok, I think we should probably change the format of the 'dump' for >>> fields. Using the colon to split up the field from the value is >>> unfortunate, may I suggest replacing it with '=' instead? As well as >>> printing the size after a colon. So for: >>> >>> void foo(void) { >>> struct Bar { >>> unsigned c : 1; >>> unsigned : 3; >>> unsigned : 0; >>> unsigned b; >>> }; >>> >>> struct Bar a = { >>> .c = 1, >>> .b = 2022, >>> }; >>> >>> __builtin_dump_struct(&a, &printf); >>> } >>> >>> Output: >>> >>> struct Bar { >>> unsigned int c : 1 = 1 >>> unsigned int : 3 = 0 >>> unsigned int : 0 = >>> unsigned int b = 2022 >>> } >>> >>> What do you all think? >> >> I think that's a good idea for clarity. For the case where we have no value, >> I wonder if we want to do something like: `unsigned int : 0 = >> <uninitialized>` (or something else to make it exceptionally clear that >> there's nothing missing after the `=`)? > > how > > In D122248#3403518 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248#3403518>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D122248#3403478 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248#3403478>, @erichkeane >> wrote: >> >>> If it is ok, I think we should probably change the format of the 'dump' for >>> fields. Using the colon to split up the field from the value is >>> unfortunate, may I suggest replacing it with '=' instead? As well as >>> printing the size after a colon. So for: >>> >>> void foo(void) { >>> struct Bar { >>> unsigned c : 1; >>> unsigned : 3; >>> unsigned : 0; >>> unsigned b; >>> }; >>> >>> struct Bar a = { >>> .c = 1, >>> .b = 2022, >>> }; >>> >>> __builtin_dump_struct(&a, &printf); >>> } >>> >>> Output: >>> >>> struct Bar { >>> unsigned int c : 1 = 1 >>> unsigned int : 3 = 0 >>> unsigned int : 0 = >>> unsigned int b = 2022 >>> } >>> >>> What do you all think? >> >> I think that's a good idea for clarity. For the case where we have no value, >> I wonder if we want to do something like: `unsigned int : 0 = >> <uninitialized>` (or something else to make it exceptionally clear that >> there's nothing missing after the `=`)? > > How to judge whether this field is initialized? Maybe this memory has been > initialized by memset He means a special-case for the 0-size bitfield, which HAS no value (actually, wonder if this is a problem with the no-unique-address types as well?). I might suggest `N/A` instead of `uninitialized`, but am open to bikeshedding. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
