On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:28 AM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> This looks like an oversight of handling DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_UNNAMED_TYPE.
> DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_UNNAMED_TYPE only has the u.s_number.number set while
> the code expected newc.u.s_binary.left would be valid.
> So this treats
This looks like an oversight of handling DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_UNNAMED_TYPE.
DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_UNNAMED_TYPE only has the u.s_number.number set while
the code expected newc.u.s_binary.left would be valid.
So this treats DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_UNNAMED_TYPE like we treat function paramaters