JustinStitt wrote: It is my understanding that we cannot have both 1) overloading on OBT and 2) no mangling on OBT. FWIW, our first user of this may very well be the Linux kernel and I don't think they care much about the overloading semantics of OBTs. Personally, I also don't care which way we go with this. My only goal is to deliver reliable type-level overflow behavior (something our users want).
There is no rush to landing this feature but I do want to resolve ambiguity in design/implementation because now I am getting confused on the semantics folks want out of OBTs. What's the path forward here? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/148914 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
