rnk added a comment.
Well, you could go further down the route of what we do for "structors", and
store the top-level decl being mangled in the mangler. Would that solve the
problem?
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674
___
cfe-
smeenai planned changes to this revision.
smeenai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1298115, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1297893, @smeenai wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1297879, @rjmccall wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not worried about the mang
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1297893, @smeenai wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1297879, @rjmccall wrote:
>
> > I'm not worried about the mangler being re-used for multiple declarations,
> > I'm worried about a global flag changing how we mangle all com
smeenai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1297879, @rjmccall wrote:
> I'm not worried about the mangler being re-used for multiple declarations,
> I'm worried about a global flag changing how we mangle all components of a
> type when we only mean to change it at the top level.
rjmccall added a comment.
I'm not worried about the mangler being re-used for multiple declarations, I'm
worried about a global flag changing how we mangle all components of a type
when we only mean to change it at the top level.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674
_
smeenai added a comment.
@rnk pointed out on IRC that the MicrosoftCXXNameMangler is actually
specifically designed to manage the mangling of only a single name, in which
case adding state to it for handling RTTI seems like a natural approach.
@rjmccall, what do you think? I think this is much
smeenai updated this revision to Diff 173965.
smeenai added a comment.
Stateful approach
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674
Files:
lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
test/CodeGenObjCXX/msabi-objc-exceptions-gnustep.mm
Index: test/CodeGenObjCXX/msabi-objc-exceptions-gnustep.mm
rnk added a comment.
Threading a new options argument through mangleType that includes
QualifierMangleMode as well as these obj-c options seems reasonable.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-com
smeenai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1293180, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1291284, @smeenai wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1281747, @rjmccall wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1271814, @smeenai wrote:
> > >
> > >
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1291284, @smeenai wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1281747, @rjmccall wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1271814, @smeenai wrote:
> >
> > > @rjmccall I prototyped the ForRTTI parameter approach in
> > > https://
smeenai added a comment.
Sorry, had a leftover draft which I forgot to clean up. Edited in Phabricator
now.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bi
smeenai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1281747, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1271814, @smeenai wrote:
>
> > @rjmccall I prototyped the ForRTTI parameter approach in
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D53546. It could definitely be cleaned up a bit,
> > bu
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1271814, @smeenai wrote:
> @rjmccall I prototyped the ForRTTI parameter approach in
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D53546. It could definitely be cleaned up a bit, but
> it demonstrates the problems I saw with the added parameter. Namely,
smeenai added a comment.
Ping @rjmccall. Let me know if the approach in https://reviews.llvm.org/D53546
is what you'd been envisioning, or if I'm just doing something completely
brain-dead :)
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674
___
smeenai added a comment.
@rjmccall I prototyped the ForRTTI parameter approach in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53546. It could definitely be cleaned up a bit, but
it demonstrates the problems I saw with the added parameter. Namely,
`mangleType(QualType, SourceRange, QualifierMangleMode)` has a bun
smeenai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1253408, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1253401, @smeenai wrote:
>
> > Actually, I take that back ... I just misread the stack trace.
> >
> > There are a bunch of hops between the `mangleCXXRTTI` call and the ultim
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1253401, @smeenai wrote:
> Actually, I take that back ... I just misread the stack trace.
>
> There are a bunch of hops between the `mangleCXXRTTI` call and the ultimate
> mangling function:
>
> MicrosoftMangleContextImpl::mangleCXXR
smeenai requested review of this revision.
smeenai added a comment.
Actually, I take that back ... I just misread the stack trace.
There are a bunch of hops between the `mangleCXXRTTI` call and the ultimate
mangling function:
MicrosoftMangleContextImpl::mangleCXXRTTI(QualType, raw_ostream &)
smeenai planned changes to this revision.
smeenai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1251931, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1251439, @smeenai wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1251419, @rjmccall wrote:
> >
> > > Conceptually this seems fine,
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1251439, @smeenai wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1251419, @rjmccall wrote:
>
> > Conceptually this seems fine, but I think it would be good to stop and make
> > sure we're using a consistent style when mangling extensions.
smeenai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1251419, @rjmccall wrote:
> Conceptually this seems fine, but I think it would be good to stop and make
> sure we're using a consistent style when mangling extensions. Currently it
> feels like every patch to add a Clang extension to
rjmccall added a comment.
Conceptually this seems fine, but I think it would be good to stop and make
sure we're using a consistent style when mangling extensions. Currently it
feels like every patch to add a Clang extension to the Microsoft mangling ends
up inventing its own rules and crossin
smeenai updated this revision to Diff 167555.
smeenai added a comment.
arc fail
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674
Files:
lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp
test/CodeGenObjCXX/msabi-objc-exceptions-gnustep.mm
Index: test/CodeGenObjCXX/msabi-objc-exceptions-gnustep.mm
===
smeenai created this revision.
smeenai added reviewers: compnerd, DHowett-MSFT, rjmccall, rnk, theraven.
Herald added a subscriber: erik.pilkington.
Obj-C classes are mangled as C++ structs with the same name (in both the
Itanium and the Microsoft ABIs), but we want to be able to distinguish
them
24 matches
Mail list logo