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 the Microsoft mangling
> ends up inventing its own rules and crossing its fingers.
That's a fair concern.
I believe most of the Obj-C extensions have been handled by @compnerd, and he's
been following a pretty consistent scheme using the `__Objc` namespace, e.g.
`void f(id<P>) {}` is mangled as `void __cdecl f(struct objc_object<struct
__ObjC::Protocol<struct P> > *)`. I could certainly try to implement something
similar here, except as I mentioned, I'm pretty sure it would require
maintaining some state in the demangler for indicating whether we were mangling
for RTTI.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
