aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32332#751785, @george.burgess.iv wrote:
> I'd be happy with that approach. Do you like it, Aaron? I think that makes a lot of sense. > FWIW, I did a bit of archaeology, and it looks like the commit that added the > requirement that all overloads must have `overloadable` (r64414) did so to > keep users from "trying to be too sneaky for their own good." The issue it > was trying to solve was > > double sin(double) __attribute__((overloadable)); > #include <math.h> > > // calls to `sin` are now mangled, which probably resulted in fun linker > errors. > > > If we go back to no longer requiring some spelling of `overloadable` on all > (re)decls of this special non-mangled function, the above problem shouldn't > reappear. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32332 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
