Re: [swift-dev] Name mangling of subscripts

[Alex Hoppen via swift-dev]

Thanks, I have filed SR-5506  for the 
issue and will give it a shot. If I've got any questions, I'll tag you either 
in the bug report or in a pull request.

– Alex

> On 17. Jul 2017, at 21:38, Erik Eckstein  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:02 PM, John McCall > > wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Alex Hoppen via swift-dev >> > wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> With a recent change of mine (#9989 
>>> ) subscripts are no longer 
>>> represented internally by the identifier "subscript" but by a DeclBaseName 
>>> with a special flag. In name mangling, however, the string "subscript" 
>>> still surfaces (e.g. _T04test3FooC9subscriptyycfg). I think that we should 
>>> use a special flag here instead, similar to "fC" for constructors or "fD" 
>>> for destructors.
> 
> Yes, for example ‘fS’ would work.
> 
>>> I don't know much about the mangling and which considerations need to be 
>>> taken here though, so: Would this be a change that is worth doing, even 
>>> though it gives no immediate benefit? If yes, could someone assist me with 
>>> the design work of choosing the right mangling scheme or take over the 
>>> issue? Or should I just file a JIRA for it, assign it the label 
>>> "AffectsABI" and wait for someone to pick it up as the ABI gets stabilised?
>> 
>> Filing a bug seems appropriate.  If you'd like to also volunteer to fix that 
>> bug, that would be great. :)  I agree that we should use a special name in 
>> the mangling here, and I disagree that it gives no immediate benefit: if 
>> nothing else, it reduces the symbol size by a few bytes.
> 
> If you like to implement it yourself, I’m happy to assist you.
> 
>> 
>> The only consideration is making sure that the mangling doesn't collide with 
>> some other identifier.  Erik (CC'ed) probably has thoughts about that, 
>> although he's on vacation until Monday.
>> 
>> John.
> 

___
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev

Re: [swift-dev] Name mangling of subscripts

[Erik Eckstein via swift-dev]

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:02 PM, John McCall  wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Alex Hoppen via swift-dev > > wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> With a recent change of mine (#9989 
>> ) subscripts are no longer 
>> represented internally by the identifier "subscript" but by a DeclBaseName 
>> with a special flag. In name mangling, however, the string "subscript" still 
>> surfaces (e.g. _T04test3FooC9subscriptyycfg). I think that we should use a 
>> special flag here instead, similar to "fC" for constructors or "fD" for 
>> destructors.

Yes, for example ‘fS’ would work.

>> I don't know much about the mangling and which considerations need to be 
>> taken here though, so: Would this be a change that is worth doing, even 
>> though it gives no immediate benefit? If yes, could someone assist me with 
>> the design work of choosing the right mangling scheme or take over the 
>> issue? Or should I just file a JIRA for it, assign it the label "AffectsABI" 
>> and wait for someone to pick it up as the ABI gets stabilised?
> 
> Filing a bug seems appropriate.  If you'd like to also volunteer to fix that 
> bug, that would be great. :)  I agree that we should use a special name in 
> the mangling here, and I disagree that it gives no immediate benefit: if 
> nothing else, it reduces the symbol size by a few bytes.

If you like to implement it yourself, I’m happy to assist you.

> 
> The only consideration is making sure that the mangling doesn't collide with 
> some other identifier.  Erik (CC'ed) probably has thoughts about that, 
> although he's on vacation until Monday.
> 
> John.

___
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev

Re: [swift-dev] Name mangling of subscripts

[John McCall via swift-dev]

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Alex Hoppen via swift-dev  
> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> With a recent change of mine (#9989 
> ) subscripts are no longer 
> represented internally by the identifier "subscript" but by a DeclBaseName 
> with a special flag. In name mangling, however, the string "subscript" still 
> surfaces (e.g. _T04test3FooC9subscriptyycfg). I think that we should use a 
> special flag here instead, similar to "fC" for constructors or "fD" for 
> destructors.
> I don't know much about the mangling and which considerations need to be 
> taken here though, so: Would this be a change that is worth doing, even 
> though it gives no immediate benefit? If yes, could someone assist me with 
> the design work of choosing the right mangling scheme or take over the issue? 
> Or should I just file a JIRA for it, assign it the label "AffectsABI" and 
> wait for someone to pick it up as the ABI gets stabilised?

Filing a bug seems appropriate.  If you'd like to also volunteer to fix that 
bug, that would be great. :)  I agree that we should use a special name in the 
mangling here, and I disagree that it gives no immediate benefit: if nothing 
else, it reduces the symbol size by a few bytes.

The only consideration is making sure that the mangling doesn't collide with 
some other identifier.  Erik (CC'ed) probably has thoughts about that, although 
he's on vacation until Monday.

John.
___
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev