rnk added a comment. In D94639#2496969 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94639#2496969>, @akhuang wrote:
> In D94639#2496950 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94639#2496950>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> How does any of this deal with overloading? I guess for either solution >> (qualified name or real scopes) you have to include all the parameter type >> info too to avoid the functions being treated as identical/duplicate by CV? > > Yep, this patch doesn't deal with overloading or lambdas. For lambdas I have > a separate patch, and for overloading I haven't really thought much about > yet. Seems like we'd have to include all the parameter type info somehow (or > include all the parameters in the display name). Yes, I encouraged Amy to approach this incrementally: - emit forward declarations for types used in function scopes (this patch) - make lambda type names more unique (next) - try discarding the linkage name from our type info to save size - add overload type information In particular, I wanted to measure the size impact of adding function type info in isolation. I suspect that the type info we need to make overload signatures unique is very small. My theory is that most debug info size comes from complete descriptions of class types. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D94639/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94639 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
