majnemer 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)) { ---------------- rnk wrote: > 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) Woah. So if you do:
> __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; } > auto z = foo3(); How is `z` mangled? http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits