chbessonova wrote: @erichkeane Thank you for the feedback! I'll add a release note.
> However, this ALSO needs to have an entry in the -fclang-abi list, this is > obviously quite breaking of a change ABI wise. I've thought about this, but I'm not yet convinced that a new `-fclang-abi-compat` entry is necessary. The change only affects function-local classes, and while such types can technically escape their function scope, they seems cannot escape the translation unit in a way that would create a ABI compatibility issue. Am I missing something? As a point of comparison, a similar mangling fix in [PR #195340](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/195340) did not introduce a new ABI compatibility entry. That said, I'm happy to add one, just want to make sure it is actually necessary. > Does our lambda numbering still work correctly? it isn't clear from your > tests. I'm not intending to change lambda numbering, but I checked it for sure. This example: ``` void foo() { { auto f = [] { std::cout << 1 << '\n'; }; f(); } { auto f = [] { std::cout << 2 << '\n'; }; f(); } } ``` produces a bit unusual mangling, but the numbering itself seems correct and isn't affected by the patch: ``` _ZZ3foovENK3$_0clEv _ZZ3foovENK3$_1clEv ``` But I'd expect smth like this anyway ``` _ZZ3foovENKUlvE_clEv _ZZ3foovENKUlvE0_clEv ``` https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/206740 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
