erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3555843 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818#3555843>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I'm a bit uneasy that this is implementing something that's not yet been > accepted into the Itanium ABI document. That runs the risk of requiring an > ABI break if the Itanium document changes directions before finalizing. Also, > what should we be doing for the Microsoft mangling, or do we already handle > that properly? I'm a touch uneasy as well, but there at least seems to be agreement in this solution (at least according to Richard). I'm hopeful that @rjmccall can comment as to whether this is the 'final' version here, or what we can do to finalize it. The Microsoft mangling IS a problem as well, the Microsoft compiler has the same issue (https://godbolt.org/z/cnf6nM1aj), but I don't want to fix it there until MSVC does so that we don't diverge on their implementation. In the meantime, these would just not be callable in that situation (as they are now). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
