[PATCH] D122248: [clang][CodeGen]Fix clang crash and add bitfield support in __builtin_dump_struct

[Wang Yihan via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

yihanaa added a comment.

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


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248