J-Camilleri marked 3 inline comments as done.
J-Camilleri added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-access.cpp:23-27
+
+  // CHECK-DAG: !DIDerivedType(tag: DW_TAG_typedef, name: "pub_typedef",{{.*}} 
line: [[@LINE+1]],{{.*}} flags: DIFlagPublic)
+  typedef int pub_typedef;
+  pub_typedef pub_member;
+
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> Arguably/I'd be fine with testing just one case here - since the 
> implementation of choosing when to put an access modifier, which modifier to 
> put, etc, is is already implemented and tested for other cases - so we might 
> not need to duplicate that testing for this case. 
> 
> But I don't mind too much either way.
I agree with your assesment. I changed the test to just check that type aliases 
emit the flag not the logic of which flag is emitted.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/IR/DIBuilder.cpp:351
                                         DIScope *Context, uint32_t AlignInBits,
+                                        DINode::DIFlags Flags,
                                         DINodeArray Annotations) {
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> While we usually split llvm & clang commits, in this case since it changes an 
> API used by clang, this part of the llvm change should go along with the 
> clang change.
Regarding this and the previous comment about separating the llvm commit.

Am I to have 2 commits as follows?
1. change llvm to emit flag + test case
2. modify llvm interface + change clang to emit flag + test case

I do not have merge rights so I will ask for this when I get to the merge stage.

Thanks for the review.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86/debug-info-access.ll:12-32
+;
+;     using pub_default_using = int;
+;     pub_default_using a_pub;
 ;   };
 ;
 ;   class B : public A {
 ;   public:
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> Probably don't need all this test coverage - since most of this is motivated 
> by the features up in clang - on the LLVM side we just need one case that 
> demonstrates that if we put an access specifier in the flags, that gets 
> emitted.
I left the llvm to be the same as generated by the cpp file but changed the 
`CHECK` to just verify that the accessibility flag is emitted for a `typedef`.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D134339/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D134339

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to