Added TypeKind.FLOAT16 for 32 in cindex.py

[zokrezyl]

fix for #142633

Added FLOAT16 enum for value 32

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang

Author: Zokre Zyl (zokrezyl)

Changes

fix for #142633

Added FLOAT16 enum for value 32

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142634.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) clang/bindings/python/clang/cindex.py (+1)

diff --git a/clang/bindings/python/clang/cindex.py b/clang/bindings/python/clang/cindex.py
index 6f7243cdf80ac..25ca9486240c7 100644
--- a/clang/bindings/python/clang/cindex.py
+++ b/clang/bindings/python/clang/cindex.py
@@ -2483,6 +2483,7 @@ def spelling(self):
     OBJCSEL = 29
     FLOAT128 = 30
     HALF = 31
+    FLOAT16 = 32
     IBM128 = 40
     COMPLEX = 100
     POINTER = 101

[github-actions]

⚠️ We detected that you are using a GitHub private e-mail address to contribute to the repo.
Please turn off Keep my email addresses private setting in your account.
See LLVM Discourse for more information.

[DeinAlptraum]

Thanks for the PR, LGTM
I'll merge this once you've checked the private email setting as described in the bot comment.

CC @Endilll :
Seems like we're missing a bunch of TypeKinds, currently missing 33 - 39 and 179 - 181 enum variants. 180 and 181 were only added the other day, we might want to look into some way to test these automatically to ensure that any additions are also added on Python side in the future.

[Endilll]

Seems like we're missing a bunch of TypeKinds, currently missing 33 - 39 and 179 - 181 enum variants. 180 and 181 were only added the other day, we might want to look into some way to test these automatically to ensure that any additions are also added on Python side in the future.

Time to put libclang to use, and parse index.h?

[DeinAlptraum]

Time to put libclang to use, and parse cindex.h?

Probably, though I'll check if there are any more direct options first. I don't quite like the idea of hardcoding source file paths in bindings tests.

[Endilll]

Time to put libclang to use, and parse cindex.h?

Probably, though I'll check if there are any more direct options first. I don't quite like the idea of hardcoding source file paths in bindings tests.

If that helps, it should be available using a relatively stable path, because it's a public header.

[Endilll]

I never meant to block this PR on the presence of an additional test infrastructure.

[Endilll]

⚠️ We detected that you are using a GitHub private e-mail address to contribute to the repo. Please turn off Keep my email addresses private setting in your account. See LLVM Discourse for more information.

@zokrezyl Merge of the PR is blocked on this. Let us know when you made your email public.

[zokrezyl]

⚠️ We detected that you are using a GitHub private e-mail address to contribute to the repo. Please turn off Keep my email addresses private setting in your account. See LLVM Discourse for more information.

@zokrezyl Merge of the PR is blocked on this. Let us know when you made your email public.

done

[zokrezyl]

IMHO: I guess a relevant test case is to take some huge relevant project, maybe LLVM itself and parse all their files and walk through all the nodes of the ast through all the members/methods recursively

[github-actions]

@zokrezyl Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project!

Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR.

Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues.

How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here.

If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again.

If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done!

[DeinAlptraum]

Great, thank you!

IMHO: I guess a relevant test case is to take some huge relevant project, maybe LLVM itself and parse all their files and walk through all the nodes of the ast through all the members/methods recursively

The problem is that this depends on the functionality you're testing, e.g. in this case, just walking the entire Clang AST would not have been enough to detect the issue, you would have had to call cursor.type.kind for every node. And at that point, you might as well compare the possible to the mapped kinds directly.

[zokrezyl]

Great, thank you!

IMHO: I guess a relevant test case is to take some huge relevant project, maybe LLVM itself and parse all their files and walk through all the nodes of the ast through all the members/methods recursively

The problem is that this depends on the functionality you're testing, e.g. in this case, just walking the entire Clang AST would not have been enough to detect the issue, you would have had to call cursor.type.kind for every node. And at that point, you might as well compare the possible to the mapped kinds directly.

Well, that is what I mean walking recursively and calling all possible methods, attributes, at least those that do not need arguments. Obviously avoiding cycles, as such a walking would cause cycles.