dblaikie added a comment. In D102356#2758371 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2758371>, @hoy wrote:
> In D102356#2758179 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2758179>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> This was previously crashing, I guess? Testing should validate the behavior >> beyond the crash, though - (presumably there's some more specific behavior >> than "does not crash" that wasn't being tested for before - that certain >> names are mangled appropriately or what-have-you) > > Yes, an assert was triggered related to c++ constructors/destructors while > it's not now. Regarding the behavior, c++ constructors/destructors are not > static, so I don't expect a behavior change. ctors/dtors can have internal linkage, if the type has internal linkage (if it's in an anonymous namespace) - but in any case, my point was that there's some specific behavior you're expecting, even if that behavior is "does not get this attribute" - previously no code tested that with this feature enabled the ctor wouldn't get the attribute (because it couldn't've tested that, because what it did was crash) - so testing that would be good. But testing the attribute does work on the ctor of a type in an anonymous namespace would be suitable too. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
