jmmartinez added a comment. In D144870#4202121 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144870#4202121>, @probinson wrote:
> (Of course it's possible that finding the preceding field can be done only by > iterating, but I'd hope that isn't necessary.) Sadly, this is the case. `field_iterator` and the underlying `decl_iterator` used to implement it are forward iterators. However, your comment made me realize that we could forward the `elements` array from `CGDebugInfoCollectRecordNormalFields` which contains the already created debug-info for the previous fields. By using this array I could get pretty much the same effect. What do you think? In D144870#4202121 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144870#4202121>, @probinson wrote: > struct non_adjacent_bitfields { > char d; > char : 0; > char e; > char f : 8; > }; > > (1) Is `e` affected by the presence of the zero-length bitfield? (2) is `f` > affected? (3) If the answers are "no" and "yes" then you do need to iterate > looking for the zero-length bitfield, but otherwise I think it's sufficient > to look only at the preceding field. (1) and (2): They do not get affected by the precense of the annonymous bitfield. Only sequences of bitfields get "squashed" in the same integer. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144870/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144870 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
