================
@@ -8649,19 +8649,24 @@ static bool DumpEnumValue(const clang::QualType
&qual_type, Stream &s,
// At the same time, we're applying a heuristic to determine whether we want
// to print this enum as a bitfield. We're likely dealing with a bitfield if
// every enumerator is either a one bit value or a superset of the previous
- // enumerators. Also 0 doesn't make sense when the enumerators are used as
- // flags.
- for (auto *enumerator : enum_decl->enumerators()) {
- uint64_t val = enumerator->getInitVal().getSExtValue();
- val = llvm::SignExtend64(val, 8*byte_size);
- if (llvm::popcount(val) != 1 && (val & ~covered_bits) != 0)
- can_be_bitfield = false;
- covered_bits |= val;
- ++num_enumerators;
- if (val == enum_svalue) {
- // Found an exact match, that's all we need to do.
- s.PutCString(enumerator->getNameAsString());
- return true;
+ // enumerators. Also an enumerator of 0 doesn't make sense when the
----------------
DavidSpickett wrote:
I clarified this to "an enumerator of 0 doesn't make sense", which is my
understanding of it. As opposed to "a value of 0 doesn't make sense".
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97553
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
