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 > > > 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 `getStaticDeclName` on a > > > variable that's obviously not static? > > > > > > It was done in `CodeGenFunction::EmitAutoVarInit` a while ago. I moved it > > since then, but it's the same thing. I'm happy to mangle it any other way. > > At the end of the day we just need some name for an (unnamed address) > > global which is synthesized from a function-local initialization. We could > > just take the mangled function name and append something to it. > > > Okay. I assume this is internal-linkage and the name is just for debugging > purposes? Maybe we could have an API to generate a best-effort name mangling > that could intentionally punt on variably-modified types. I can do that, if you think that's the right approach. Or I can use mangled function name + something (instead of trying to synthesize a static mangling). That seems pretty simple and it'll always work. > (I'm not really sure why the type is being mangled here anyway.) Maybe the author of http://llvm.org/r127227 knows? :-) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D54055 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
