rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1251439, @smeenai wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674#1251419, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Conceptually this seems fine, but I think it would be good to stop and make > > sure we're using a consistent style when mangling extensions. Currently it > > feels like every patch to add a Clang extension to the Microsoft mangling > > ends up inventing its own rules and crossing its fingers. > > > That's a fair concern. > > I believe most of the Obj-C extensions have been handled by @compnerd, and > he's been following a pretty consistent scheme using the `__Objc` namespace, > e.g. `void f(id<P>) {}` is mangled as `void __cdecl f(struct > objc_object<struct __ObjC::Protocol<struct P> > *)`. I could certainly try to > implement something similar here, except as I mentioned, I'm pretty sure it > would require maintaining some state in the demangler for indicating whether > we were mangling for RTTI. State wouldn't really be the right solution anyway, although it might work because of the structural restrictions on Objective-C types. If you wanted to keep that same rule, I think you could probably just pass a (default=`false`) flag down to the `ObjCObjectPointerType`, `ObjCObjectType`, and `ObjCInterfaceType` cases. (The pointee type of the former will always be one of the latter two.) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52674 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
