juliehockett added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-doc/BitcodeWriter.cpp:382
+ emitRecord(R.USR, REFERENCE_USR);
+ emitRecord(R.Name, REFERENCE_NAME);
+ emitRecord((unsigned)R.RefType, REFERENCE_TYPE);
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> >>! In D46281#1083806, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> > Global question: you are using `NamedDecl::getNameAsString()`, and passing
> > it as `StringRef`.
> > You have looked at this with ASAN, and it's ok?
> >
> > Also, have you considered using the `NamedDecl::getName()`, which already
> > returns `StringRef`.?
>
> Hm, looking at those two functions, not sure `NamedDecl::getName()` will work
> here.
> Alternatively, have you considered just making this `Name` field store
> `DeclarationName`,
> and call `getNameAsString()` only here?
The field stores it as a string? So the name string is copied into the info
data structure itself -- this is so that the backend need have no knowledge of
the AST to do its job.
================
Comment at: clang-doc/Serialize.cpp:200-217
static void parseParameters(FunctionInfo &I, const FunctionDecl *D) {
for (const ParmVarDecl *P : D->parameters()) {
- SymbolID Type;
- std::string Name;
- InfoType RefType;
if (const auto *T = getDeclForType(P->getOriginalType())) {
- Type = getUSRForDecl(T);
- if (dyn_cast<EnumDecl>(T))
- RefType = InfoType::IT_enum;
- else if (dyn_cast<RecordDecl>(T))
- RefType = InfoType::IT_record;
- I.Params.emplace_back(Type, RefType, P->getQualifiedNameAsString());
- } else {
- Name = P->getOriginalType().getAsString();
- I.Params.emplace_back(Name, P->getQualifiedNameAsString());
+ if (const auto *N = dyn_cast<EnumDecl>(T)) {
+ I.Params.emplace_back(getUSRForDecl(N), N->getNameAsString(),
+ InfoType::IT_enum,
P->getQualifiedNameAsString());
+ continue;
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> This very closely matches the `parseFields()`, with a few changes (`I.Params`
> vs `I.Members`,
> `getUSRForDecl(T)` vs `getUSRForDecl(N)`, `F->getQualifiedNameAsString()` vs
> `P->getQualifiedNameAsString()`).
> If it makes sense, it might be a good idea to refactor them together?
So the fixme in parseFields was the main difference -- I fixed it, and they are
subtly different (that is, parseFields adds a MemberTypeInfo with an access
attached to it, where as parseParameters adds a FieldTypeInfo without the
access attached). Also, the way to get the information we want from a
ParmVarDecl is slightly different from how you get it from a FieldDecl.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46281
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
