[cfe-dev] Using a enum type for a bitfield

Michael Hordijk via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Sep 3 10:19:05 PDT 2015

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 this
>> respect.
> 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.

- michael

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list