================
@@ -2367,11 +2369,38 @@ size_t DWARFASTParserClang::ParseChildEnumerators(
}
if (name && name[0] && got_value) {
- m_ast.AddEnumerationValueToEnumerationType(
+ auto ECD = m_ast.AddEnumerationValueToEnumerationType(
clang_type, decl, name, enum_value, enumerator_byte_size * 8);
++enumerators_added;
+
+ llvm::APSInt InitVal = ECD->getInitVal();
+ // Keep track of the size of positive and negative values.
+ if (InitVal.isUnsigned() || InitVal.isNonNegative()) {
+ // If the enumerator is zero that should still be counted as a positive
+ // bit since we need a bit to store the value zero.
+ unsigned ActiveBits = InitVal.getActiveBits();
+ NumPositiveBits = std::max({NumPositiveBits, ActiveBits, 1u});
----------------
Michael137 wrote:
Oh I didn't realize you're doing this over a loop. And you're mimicking the
behaviour of SemaDecl. Hmmm again this feels like something we could share with
Clang. Something like `bool computeEnumBits(unsigned &NumNegativeBits, unsigned
&NumPositiveBits` (where the return value implies `MembersRepresentableByInt`).
Then just call it from `TypeSystemClang::CompleteTagDeclarationDefinition`.
What do you think?
I feel like that would reduce the diff in this patch quite nicely
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115005
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
