hfinkel added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18035#448002, @DmitryPolukhin wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18035#447473, @hfinkel wrote: > > > FYI: There is now a specification, see: > > http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/2016-June/002919.html > > > ... > But as far as I can see, Richard is not going to approve this patch so it > seems to be dead end. At the last C++ committee meeting, I observed Richard reaching out to the Redhat folks to ask for a specification so that we could make sure we implemented this feature properly (i.e. as intended). Based on that, I'm fairly certain he's interested in seeing a solution here. We just received the first draft of that specification yesterday. As far as I can tell, Richard also is very busy, like many of us, and it can take time to get to things, even important things. I understand why this is frustrating, but please don't become discouraged. Richard, can you comment on whether you still want the refactoring you suggested in light of Dmitry's responses? http://reviews.llvm.org/D18035 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
