erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3943071 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818#3943071>, @dfrib wrote:
> In D126818#3941201 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818#3941201>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> [...] particularly since the suggested wording says the opposite of what I >> THOUGHT the discussion was doing at the end? >> [...] We might find ourselves wanting to hold off until CWG comes up with >> actual wording? > > Same reflection, and agreed. > >> I think perhaps we need to wait on CWG to clarify what they mean, at least >> by including a wording consistent with that top thing. The unfortunate part >> here is that Clang implements 1/2 of this at the moment: we implement the >> SEMA changes, but not the mangling changes for the current wording. > > Should consider asking on the CWG reflector to make sure they are aware of > Clang's quite far-going implementation experience with fixing this defect (in > the way originally proposed), and of Itanium C++'s/@rjmccall's view that the > proposed ABI updates looks reasonable? That seems valuable, would you mind doing so? 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
