akhuang marked 2 inline comments as done.
akhuang added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1874
+ case LangAS::ptr32_sptr:
+ Extra.mangleSourceName("_ASPtr32_sptr");
+ break;
----------------
rnk wrote:
> Hm, we should actually mangle these as they do. See the FIXME comment above
> the definition of `PointersAre64Bit`. If you look at the uses of
> PointersAre64Bit, you should be able to find the places where you need to
> check if a pointer type is either in the explicit 64-bit address space or in
> the default address space for a 64-bit target. That check sounds like a good
> helper function.
Added a function to check for 64-bit address space / default 64-bit pointer. I
also changed it so that the pointer size address spaces mangle as normal types
and not address space types.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:2874
N->getUnqualifiedType())) {
+ const PointerType *OldTypePtr =
+ dyn_cast<PointerType>(O->getUnqualifiedType());
----------------
rnk wrote:
> This probably deserves a comment. It looks like this lets you do this:
> ```
> void foo(int *__ptr64);
> void foo(int *p) { } // assume x64 target
> ```
> ... without having the compiler think it's creating an overload.
>
> Separately, MSVC doesn't permit `__ptr32/__ptr64` overloads. Is it possible
> to implement that here as well?
Comment added.
Although I think that for
```
void foo(int *__ptr64);
void foo(int *p) { } // assume x64 target
```
this code doesn't affect the overload because `int * __ptr64` and `int *` are
already the same type?
As far as I can tell this also doesn't allow `__ptr32/__ptr64` overloads,
because it counts them as the same type. It gives a "conflicting types" error
instead of a "redefintion" error though, so I'll look into that.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/mixed-ptr-sizes.ll:11
+; f->p64 = i;
+; use_foo(f);
+; }
----------------
rnk wrote:
> Do you need use_foo? I think `f` is a parameter, so the compiler can't remove
> any stores to it, even without a call to use it. You should be able to
> simplify the test to skip these calls.
Deleted `use_foo`, thanks.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/mixed-ptr-sizes.ll:30
+;
+; $ clang -cc1 -triple x86_64-windows-msvc -fms-extensions -O2 -S t.cpp
+
----------------
rnk wrote:
> If you compile this code as plain C code, then it won't have as much name
> mangling, which makes the .ll file more readable.
done
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66827/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66827
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
