DavidSpickett added a comment.
Thanks for working on this. Due to llvm dev and vacation it took me a while to
get to this.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/commands/expression/expr-bitfield-on-boundary/Makefile:3
+
+CXXFLAGS_EXTRAS := -gdwarf-2
+
----------------
Add a comment here to explain why we need dwarf v2 specifically.
Which I think is because in v4 the encoding is done such that you won't get a
negative offset?
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/commands/expression/expr-bitfield-on-boundary/main.cpp:3
+ unsigned char a : 7;
+ unsigned char b : 4;
+};
----------------
Comment here that b is going across the byte boundary.
Maybe on the packed too, iirc without packed it would assign one whole byte to
each of a and b.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/commands/expression/expr-bitfield-on-boundary/main.cpp:9
+ f.a = 1;
+ f.b = 2;
+ return 0; // Break here
----------------
`b` is going to be across the boundary, should we use a value that is also
across the boundary?
Something like 9, so you have `0b1001`. One bit on both sides of the boundary.
Just in case lldb actually is dropping one side of the value and we aren't
checking for that.
================
Comment at: lldb/unittests/Platform/PlatformSiginfoTest.cpp:62
for (auto field_name : llvm::split(path, '.')) {
- uint64_t bit_offset;
ASSERT_NE(field_type.GetIndexOfFieldWithName(field_name.str().c_str(),
----------------
Are you reasonably sure you found all these cases? Don't want to loose the sign
because of an implicit cast.
If not, `-Wconversion` is worth a go though lldb probably has hundreds of those
already. Perhaps compare the number of those warnings before and after this
change.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138197/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138197
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
