aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D122248#3403143 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248#3403143>, @yihanaa wrote:
> 1. Support zero-width bitfield, named bitfield and unnamed bitfield.
> 2. Add a release notes.
>
> The builtin function __builtin_dump_struct behaves for zero-width bitfield
> and unnamed bitfield as follows
>
> int printf(const char *fmt, ...);
>
> 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);
> }
>
> int main() {
> foo();
> return 0;
> }
>
> Output:
>
> struct Bar {
> unsigned int c : 1
> unsigned int : 0
> unsigned int b : 2022
> }
Thank you for the release note and additional test coverage. I'm wondering why
we handle the zero-width bit-field differently from the anonymous one (e.g.,
why do we not have `unsigned int : 3` before the `unsigned int : 0`? It seems a
bit odd to drop that from the output.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D122248
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
