> On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:02 PM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Alex Hoppen via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org >> <mailto:swift-dev@swift.org>> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> With a recent change of mine (#9989 >> <https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/9989>) subscripts are no longer >> represented internally by the identifier "subscript" but by a DeclBaseName >> with a special flag. In name mangling, however, the string "subscript" still >> surfaces (e.g. _T04test3FooC9subscriptyycfg). I think that we should use a >> special flag here instead, similar to "fC" for constructors or "fD" for >> destructors.
Yes, for example ‘fS’ would work. >> I don't know much about the mangling and which considerations need to be >> taken here though, so: Would this be a change that is worth doing, even >> though it gives no immediate benefit? If yes, could someone assist me with >> the design work of choosing the right mangling scheme or take over the >> issue? Or should I just file a JIRA for it, assign it the label "AffectsABI" >> and wait for someone to pick it up as the ABI gets stabilised? > > Filing a bug seems appropriate. If you'd like to also volunteer to fix that > bug, that would be great. :) I agree that we should use a special name in > the mangling here, and I disagree that it gives no immediate benefit: if > nothing else, it reduces the symbol size by a few bytes. If you like to implement it yourself, I’m happy to assist you. > > The only consideration is making sure that the mangling doesn't collide with > some other identifier. Erik (CC'ed) probably has thoughts about that, > although he's on vacation until Monday. > > John.
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
