================
@@ -2850,6 +2850,26 @@ void CXXNameMangler::mangleQualifiers(Qualifiers Quals,
const DependentAddressSp
if (Quals.hasUnaligned())
mangleVendorQualifier("__unaligned");
+ // __ptrauth. Note that this is parameterized.
+ if (PointerAuthQualifier PtrAuth = Quals.getPointerAuth()) {
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
Oops, I missed the question that was here, but this does still need to be
addressed.
We don't need MS to be involved, we can pick our own mangling and try to avoid
potential conflicts by making it ugly (we do this for plenty of other
extensions). But we're missing test coverage because we have no C++ tests for
mangling or demangling (Microsoft or Itanium). I think we're missing the
demangling implementation entirely, but we lately have been trying to get folks
to do them at the same time so the demangler stays closer in sync with the
mangler.
(Test coverage would be: CodeGen tests with an Itanium and a Microsoft ABI
making sure we emit the expected manglings in C++ with a FileCheck test +
`llvm/test/Demangle` tests to make sure the generated manglings will demangle
back to an expected signature.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100830
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
