george.burgess.iv added a comment. I'd be happy with that approach. Do you like it, Aaron?
FWIW, I did a bit of archaeology, and it looks like the commit that added the requirement that all overloads must have `overloadable` (r64414) did so to keep users from "trying to be too sneaky for their own good." The issue it was trying to solve was double sin(double) __attribute__((overloadable)); #include <math.h> // calls to `sin` are now mangled, which probably resulted in fun linker errors. If we go back to no longer requiring some spelling of `overloadable` on all (re)decls of this special non-mangled function, the above problem shouldn't reappear. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32332 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
