================
@@ -875,7 +875,41 @@ void TextNodeDumper::dumpBareDeclRef(const Decl *D) {
if (const NamedDecl *ND = dyn_cast<NamedDecl>(D)) {
ColorScope Color(OS, ShowColors, DeclNameColor);
- OS << " '" << ND->getDeclName() << '\'';
+ if (DeclarationName Name = ND->getDeclName())
+ OS << " '" << Name << '\'';
+ else
+ switch (ND->getKind()) {
+ case Decl::Decomposition: {
+ auto *DD = cast<DecompositionDecl>(ND);
+ OS << " first_binding '" << DD->bindings()[0]->getDeclName() << '\'';
+ break;
+ }
+ case Decl::Field: {
+ auto *FD = cast<FieldDecl>(ND);
+ OS << " index " << FD->getFieldIndex();
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> It is at least a uniquely identifying property for the field within its
> parent declaration.
>
> We could call it `field_index`, but since this is a field and there is only
> this index, it doesn't feel particularly confusing to me, otherwise do you
> mean confusing when quickly skimming over the AST dump?
Yeah, exactly that. `field_index` or `field at offset X`, or `field at index
X` could be more readable? It just isn't immediately clear what `index` for a
field is relevant in the context of reading the AST (as this is actually more
of a property of the containing struct instead of the field, but stored in the
field itself for obvious reasons).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/124605
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
