What Reid said...
Yours,
Andrey
> 5 мая 2016 г., в 1:48, Reid Kleckner <r...@google.com> написал(а):
>
> rnk added inline comments.
>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
> @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
> case QMM_Result:
> + // Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
> + Quals.removeUnaligned();
> if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa<TagType>(T)) {
> ----------------
> majnemer wrote:
>> andreybokhanko wrote:
>>> majnemer wrote:
>>>> andreybokhanko wrote:
>>>>> Done. Test added.
>>>> Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
>>> Sure. An example is:
>>>
>>> __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
>>>
>>> MS mangles it as
>>>
>>> ?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
>>>
>>> However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer && Quals)
>>> || isa<TagType>(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A", resulting to
>>>
>>> ?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Andrey
>> Wait, I thought __unaligned can only apply to pointer types. Is this not
>> so?!
>> Does `__unaligned int x;` really keep it's `__unaligned` qualifier?
> Yeah it does:
> $ cat t.cpp
> __unaligned int x;
> $ cl -nologo -c t.cpp && dumpbin /symbols t.obj | grep ?x
> t.cpp
> 008 00000000 SECT3 notype External | ?x@@3HFA (int __unaligned x)
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
