george.burgess.iv added a comment.
> I'd like to understand this use case a little bit better. If you don't
> perform the mangling, then choosing which overload gets called is already
> based on the source order, isn't it? See https://godbolt.org/g/8b10Ns
I think I might have miscommunicated: `transparently_overloadable` only
enforces no mangling on one function out of the set of functions with the same
name. So,
void foo(int) __attribute__((transparently_overloadable));
void foo(float) __attribute__((overloadable));
void bar() {
foo(1); // calls @foo
foo(1f); // calls @_Z3foof
}
> The logic as to why overloadable is required on every redeclaration makes
> sense, but also flies in the face of your rational for why you want a new
> spelling of the same attribute that doesn't need to be on every
> redeclaration. I worry about this difference being mildly confusing to user.
Yeah, good point. The more I think about that, the more I don't like the
inconsistency; I'll drop that change.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32332
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
