vsk planned changes to this revision. vsk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38210#887635, @pcc wrote:
> Wouldn't we get false positives if there is an indirect call in C++ code that > calls into C code (or vice versa)? Ah, right, I'm surprised I didn't hit that while testing. > I think I'd prefer it if we came up with a precise encoding of function types > that was independent of RTTI, and use it in all languages. One possibility > would be to represent each function type with an object of size 1 whose name > contains the mangled function type, and use its address as the identity of > the function type. That makes sense. Like the RTTI object it could be made linkonce_odr. https://reviews.llvm.org/D38210 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits