I've started with a small r160783 that ... On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote: >> 2) See the zeta mangling in mangle-ms.cpp - not sure if changing the >> mangling there is a problem at all, as "blocks" are never >> compiled/mangled by MSVS (they are clang-specific extensions). > > It would be good to at least come up with a reasonable-seeming > mangling for them. Basically, please make sure they're mangled > just like pointers to functions, but different in some obvious way. ... adds an zeta/eta comparison between function pointer and block mangling ...
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Charles Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote: > >> Hi Charles, John, >> >> Can you please see >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13434 >> ? >> It seems like this case has never been tested before. >> >> I've written some tests and made a simple fix to the code. >> >> It's not thoroughly tested on all cases but IMO adding at least some >> new coverage and making all new tests pass by a simple is a good >> progress to start with. >> >> Two questions: >> 1) See the FIXME comment in MicrosoftMangle - I do think the whole >> comment should be made less cryptic. >> Probably I'll need some help from Charles to decipher this :) > I already acted on that suggestion. You can safely remove the 'I'll probably > have…' part. ... and removes the "I'll probably have" part. >> 2) See the zeta mangling in mangle-ms.cpp - not sure if changing the >> mangling there is a problem at all, as "blocks" are never >> compiled/mangled by MSVS (they are clang-specific extensions). > OK, but what about lambdas? The lambdas are just not supported in MicrosoftMangle (compared to ItaniumMangle) so I don't think mangling of templates with lambda parameters is a priority now? :) > Oh, and, as John said, the mangling of a block pointer should resemble that > of a function pointer (i.e. no '$$A6'). Yeah, I think so too now. Trying to achieve that... >> Can you please review the patch? > Seems to me that the '$$A' part is specific to template parameters that are > neither pointers nor references to functions. What happens in those cases? > The '6' is probably because this is a global (near) function. What happens > when the NTTP is a member function? (Can you even do that?) Oh my god! ---------------------------------- template<typename T> class Z {}; class C { public: void method() {} }; template<typename T> class Z<void (T::*)(void)> {}; void foo(Z<void (C::*)(void)>) {} // CHECK: "\01?foo@@YAXV?$Z@P8C@@AEXXZ@@@Z" ---------------------------------- > Chip > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
