Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

majnemer added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654#423382, @andreybokhanko wrote: > David, thank you for the thorough review! -- it definitely made the patch > stronger and me even more paranoid than the rest of Intel. :-) Thanks for implementing this :) > > > In

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

andreybokhanko added a comment. David, thank you for the thorough review! -- it definitely made the patch stronger and me even more paranoid than the rest of Intel. :-) In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654#422445, @majnemer wrote: > FYI, we will also want to update `getAddrOfCXXCatchHandler` and

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL268727: [MSVC] Implementation of __unaligned as a proper type qualifier (authored by asbokhan). Changed prior to commit: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654?vs=55588=56401#toc Repository: rL LLVM

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

majnemer accepted this revision. majnemer added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM FYI, we will also want to update `getAddrOfCXXCatchHandler` and `getThrowInfo` to correctly handle `__unaligned`. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

andreybokhanko added a comment. David, just noticed that your first question doesn't have a redefinition. For this program: __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; } auto z = unaligned_foo3(); Both MS and us mangle z the same: ?z@@3HA Yours, Andrey http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

andreybokhanko marked an inline comment as done. Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584 @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@ case QMM_Result: +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here. +Quals.removeUnaligned(); if ((!IsPointer && Quals) ||

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

majnemer added inline comments. Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584 @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@ case QMM_Result: +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here. +Quals.removeUnaligned(); if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

majnemer added inline comments. Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584 @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@ case QMM_Result: +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here. +Quals.removeUnaligned(); if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

What Reid said... Yours, Andrey > 5 мая 2016 г., в 1:48, Reid Kleckner написал(а): > > rnk added inline comments. > > > Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584 > @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@ > case QMM_Result: > +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

rnk added inline comments. Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584 @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@ case QMM_Result: +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here. +Quals.removeUnaligned(); if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

majnemer added inline comments. Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584 @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@ case QMM_Result: +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here. +Quals.removeUnaligned(); if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

andreybokhanko marked 3 inline comments as done. Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584 @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@ case QMM_Result: +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here. +Quals.removeUnaligned(); if ((!IsPointer && Quals) ||

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

majnemer added inline comments. Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584 @@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@ case QMM_Result: +// Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here. +Quals.removeUnaligned(); if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa(T)) {

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

andreybokhanko updated this revision to Diff 55588. andreybokhanko added a comment. Fixed a bug uncovered by David Majnemer's review; added tests he asked for. http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654 Files: include/clang/AST/Type.h include/clang/Basic/AddressSpaces.h include/clang/Basic/Attr.td

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

majnemer added a comment. It would be good to have a test for the variable template case: template T x; auto g() { return x; } should mangle to `??$x@PEFAH@@3PEFAHEFA` http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

Re: [PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

majnemer added inline comments. Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1446-1451 @@ -1445,5 +1445,8 @@ Out << 'E'; + if (!PointeeType.isNull() && PointeeType.getLocalQualifiers().hasUnaligned()) +Out << 'F'; + if (HasRestrict) Out << 'I'; }