> On Sep 17, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Bruce Mitchener <bruce.mitche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Howdy! > > I was looking at some of the CompilerType changes and had some questions > related to the recent cleanups and renamings. > > • clang_type_t is a typedef for void* and is used for the opaque qual > type code among other things. However, the m_type on CompilerType is just a > void*. Should we rename clang_type_t to compiler_type_t or just do away with > it and use void* instead?
It might be a good idea to use something like "compiler_opaque_type_t" or just "opaque_t", which is a typedef to "void *". Then we can use this to CompilerDecl, CompilerDeclContext and CompilerType. > • SymbolFileDWARF has 2 typedefs, DIEToClangType and ClangTypeToDIE > which are used for 2 maps, m_forward_decl_die_to_clang_type and > m_forward_decl_clang_type_to_die. Should these be renamed to use Compiler > instead of Clang? They could be, but I really need to move these DIEToClangType and ClangTypeToDIE over into DWARFASTParserClang. The problem it is isn't saving the entire CompilerType it is just saving the clang_type_t and some other type system, like Go's TypeSystem, could actually make a CompilerType and use its type system and this "void *"... So this map is really just for Clang types. The reason it wasn't moved was we only have one DWARFASTParserClang when we have DWARF in .o files on MacOSX (we have a "a.out" executable and it points to N SymbolFileDWARF instances (one for each .o file where the .o files contain DWARF, but there is no DWARF in the main executable) so I didn't want to move this map over into DWARFASTParserClang since this would change things. So I vote to not rename it for now and let users know this is for clang types only... > • Any use of an instance of CompilerType in general code (code not in a > file with Clang in the name) can probably be renamed from clang_type to > compiler_type, right? This would include the clang_type member on Type. Yes! please do make the change to fix this. > I'd like to do any of the above, just want to make sure that it won't clash > with pending changes like this and that people actually want this to happen. So please do the first and last and skip the DIEToClangType/ClangTypeToDIE cleanup. Greg _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
