================
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:889
@@ -888,4 +888,3 @@
case TemplateArgument::Integral:
- mangleIntegerLiteral(TA.getAsIntegral(),
- TA.getIntegralType()->isBooleanType());
+ mangleIntegerLiteral(TA.getAsIntegral(), /*IsBoolean=*/false);
break;
----------------
Richard Smith wrote:
> What's the reason for this change? If it's OK to pass false here, do we need
> the IsBoolean parameter at all?
An unrelated change slipped in, sorry.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:894
@@ +893,3 @@
+ case TemplateArgument::NullPtr: {
+ mangleIntegerLiteral(llvm::APSInt(/*BitWidth=*/64), /*IsBoolean=*/false);
+ break;
----------------
Richard Smith wrote:
> Sending nullptr_t through the integer literal codepath seems unnecessary. All
> we really know here is that nullptr_t appears to be mangled as A@, so maybe
> just emit that directly.
While we could do that, I think it makes the mangling scheme a bit more
complicated semantically and it decentralizes the mechanism of choosing how to
mangle zero-ish things.
As an example: bool template arguments. True and false aren't given special
mangling behavior. We "boolify" the integral value, treat the result as an
integer and mangle **that** value.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1284
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
