[cfe-commits] r171604 - /cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-method.cpp

[Chandler Carruth]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > Any ideas how we can make these types of debug info tests
>>>> > more understandable to future devs? My only idea is copious comments,
>>>> but I
>>>> > feel like having some self-documenting system would be better and I
>>>> just
>>>> > don't have any good ideas about what it would look like.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I'm not sure what it would look like - essentially the test
>>>> would have to reference constants from LLVM to describe the flags
>>>> combined into the flags field. (&, better than that, the ability to
>>>> specify just some part of the flags value that is of interest to a
>>>> particular test)
>>>>
>>>> Probably just adding comments of the form:
>>>>
>>>> ; test that the flags represent the 'protected' access modifier
>>>> ; 258 (flags) = 42 (thing1) | 157 (thing2) | (protected) 8
>>>>
>>>> (I haven't actually looked up what constants are combined into the
>>>> flags value in this case)
>>>
>>>
>>> That would work, an option for more self-documentation would be to have
>>> the
>>> debug output (e.g. [ DW_TAG_class_type ]) contain the access specifiers.
>>>
>>
>> Just brain storming: what about having the IR asm printer show the sorted
>> |'ed set of flags in a comment?
>>
>>
>
> Well, yeah, that's what I was saying :)
>

Yay overloaded meaning of 'debug'. I thought you meant make the debug info
flags actually symbolic like some of the other things... But yea, it reads
better the other way.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130104/b34c918b/attachment.html>