jfb updated this revision to Diff 173946.
jfb added a comment.
- clang-format
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGDecl.cpp
test/CodeGen/decl.c
test/CodeGen/dump-struct-builtin.c
test/CodeGenCXX/amdgcn-string-literal.cpp
jfb added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286523, @rjmccall wrote:
> Pfft, if I'm going to be held responsible for my own work, I'm in a lot of
> trouble. :)
>
> Function name + local variable name WFM.
Your wish is my command (in this specific instance anyways).
Repository:
jfb updated this revision to Diff 173945.
jfb added a comment.
Herald added subscribers: nhaehnle, jvesely.
- As discussed on the review, change the constant generation to name the
synthesized constant using '__const.' + function_name + '.' variable_name. The
previous code wasn't generally
rjmccall added a comment.
Pfft, if I'm going to be held responsible for my own work, I'm in a lot of
trouble. :)
Function name + local variable name WFM.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055
___
cfe-commits mailing list
jfb added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286514, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286397, @jfb wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286396, @rjmccall wrote:
> >
> > > That sounds more like this use of the mangler isn't manipulating the
> > >
rjmccall added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286397, @jfb wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286396, @rjmccall wrote:
>
> > That sounds more like this use of the mangler isn't manipulating the
> > function type context correctly. But actually I think the problem is
jfb added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286396, @rjmccall wrote:
> That sounds more like this use of the mangler isn't manipulating the function
> type context correctly. But actually I think the problem is that it's
> ridiculous to assume that arbitrary local declarations
rjmccall added a comment.
That sounds more like this use of the mangler isn't manipulating the function
type context correctly. But actually I think the problem is that it's
ridiculous to assume that arbitrary local declarations have meaningful
manglings. Why are we calling
jfb added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055#1286196, @erik.pilkington wrote:
> Can you give an example of some code that triggered this with your patch
> applied? Even if it isn't a real reproducer right now, it would help to try
> to understand whats happening here.
Sure!
I
erik.pilkington added a comment.
Can you give an example of some code that triggered this with your patch
applied? Even if it isn't a real reproducer right now, it would help to try to
understand whats happening here.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055
jfb added a comment.
I'm not sure this is the right fix because mangling confuses me. It fixes the
assertion I'm encountering in my patch, and I don't think I can create a repro
without the patch (since I'm asking to mangle a local in a way we don't seem to
right now).
Repository:
rC Clang
jfb created this revision.
jfb added a reviewer: rjmccall.
Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, dexonsmith.
jfb added a comment.
I'm not sure this is the right fix because mangling confuses me. It fixes the
assertion I'm encountering in my patch, and I don't think I can create a repro
without
12 matches
Mail list logo
