[cfe-dev] Using a enum type for a bitfield
mats petersson via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Sep 3 10:44:37 PDT 2015
On 3 September 2015 at 18:19, Michael Hordijk via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 9/3/15 10:01, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, mats petersson via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Of course, the spec also states that IDB should be documented, so
>>> technically, the clang compiler is not fulfilling the specifications in
>> Technically, every open source implementation is documenting its
>> implementation-defined behavior by definition: you can always look at
>> the source code to see what the definition of the behavior is. Nothing
>> states that the documentation must be spelled out in easy fashion for
>> the user. Obviously, we'd be happy to raise that bar a bit and have
>> more formal documentation were someone willing to provide it.
> Yes. However if we start finding inconsistencies (bugs) in the
> implementation, we need to understand what the desired behavior is. If we
> can document that it is intended behavior is I can then start diving in and
> fixing the problems we're seeing. If it's not the intended behavior then I
> dive in and start fixing the inconsistencies in a different way.
> The general feeling I'm getting is "it should be supported" so I'll start
> going down that path.
If the code compiles, then it's either a bug that it compiles when it's not
supported, or a bug that it's not working correctly... ;)
And I'm fairly sure that, since GCC supports it, and Clang is intended to
be a GCC plugin-recplacement, it should work in Clang too.
> - michael
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev