And another ping. I think this is mostly right, maybe future comments can be handled in post-commit review?
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > Any more comments? > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> the attached patch adds codegen support for __uuidof. It's fairly >>>> similar to how the RTTI descriptor code works. What __uuidof does: >>>> Structs can be tagged with __declspec(uuid("some string with >>>> numbers")), and after that __uuidof(taggedstruct) returns a IID struct >>>> filled with the numbers from the uuid declspec attribute. See >>>> test/Parser/MicrosoftExtensions.cpp and the included test for more >>>> information. >>>> >>>> I moved GetUuidAttrOfType() out of Sema since codegen now needs it >>>> too. I couldn't find a great place for it -- it's a static function on >>>> CXXUuidofExpr. Since that expression isn't very useful without uuid >>>> attrs, it's a reasonable place for it I think. >>>> >>>> I'm not very familiar with visibilities. WeakAnyLinkage is mostly a >>>> guess, so please check that. >>>> >>>> The name of the symbol generated for __uuidof constants seems to be an >>>> implementation detail, so I just made up a mangling ("__uuid_" >>>> followed by the contents of the uuid, see GetAddrOfIIDDescriptor()). >>> >>> If the linkage is weak, the name matters, because the symbol will be >>> merged with symbols from other compilation units. You might want to >>> consider marking it internal/constant/unnamed_addr instead, if the >>> address doesn't actually matter; that way, the name is irrelevant, and >>> the compiler and/or linker can still merge them. >> >> Thanks! As far as I can tell that's good enough. Done. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
