rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286397, @jfb wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286396, @rjmccall wrote: > > > That sounds more like this use of the mangler isn't manipulating the > > function type context correctly. But actually I think the problem is that > > it's ridiculous to assume that arbitrary local declarations have meaningful > > manglings. Why are we calling `getStaticDeclName` on a variable that's > > obviously not static? > > > It was done in `CodeGenFunction::EmitAutoVarInit` a while ago. I moved it > since then, but it's the same thing. I'm happy to mangle it any other way. At > the end of the day we just need some name for an (unnamed address) global > which is synthesized from a function-local initialization. We could just take > the mangled function name and append something to it. Okay. I assume this is internal-linkage and the name is just for debugging purposes? Maybe we could have an API to generate a best-effort name mangling that could intentionally punt on variably-modified types. (I'm not really sure why the type is being mangled here anyway.) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
