zahiraam added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576#1016295, @majnemer wrote:
> We should really, really avoid making this sort of change without first > trying to desugar uuidof into a reference to a variable. That would solve a > ton of problems, problems like this one. Not sure I fully understand what you are proposing? Are you proposing that generated symbols like this: ??4?$A@$E?_GUID_ddb47a6a_0f23_11d5_9109_00e0296b75d3@@3U__s_GUID@@B@@QEAAAEAV0@AEBV0@@Z Be de-sugared? Wouldn't that be different that what MS is doing? Can you please give me more details about what you are thinking of? Thanks. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576#1019943, @rsmith wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576#1019703, @zahiraam wrote: > > > Currently this declaration: > > struct > > __declspec(uuid("{DDB47A6A-0F23-11D5-9109-00E0296B75D3}")) > > S1; > > > > a CXXRecordDecl type is generated with attributes (the uuid being an > > attribute). Are you proposing that instead a new type is generated for S1 > > say something like CXXUuidRecord? And create also a new TagType that > > corresponds to this new Decl? > > > No. Concretely, I'd suggest we create a new `UuidDecl` object representing > the `_GUID` object. An instance of `UuidDecl` would be created and owned by > the `uuid` attribute, and `__uuidof(X)` would denote the `UuidDecl` owned by > the `uuid` attribute on the `CXXRecordDecl`. We'd also need some way to form > redeclaration chains for `UuidDecl`s (which means we'll need a map from UUID > to `UuidDecl` somewhere, perhaps on the `ASTContext`). In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576#1019943, @rsmith wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576#1019703, @zahiraam wrote: > > > Currently this declaration: > > struct > > __declspec(uuid("{DDB47A6A-0F23-11D5-9109-00E0296B75D3}")) > > S1; > > > > a CXXRecordDecl type is generated with attributes (the uuid being an > > attribute). Are you proposing that instead a new type is generated for S1 > > say something like CXXUuidRecord? And create also a new TagType that > > corresponds to this new Decl? > > > No. Concretely, I'd suggest we create a new `UuidDecl` object representing > the `_GUID` object. An instance of `UuidDecl` would be created and owned by > the `uuid` attribute, and `__uuidof(X)` would denote the `UuidDecl` owned by > the `uuid` attribute on the `CXXRecordDecl`. We'd also need some way to form > redeclaration chains for `UuidDecl`s (which means we'll need a map from UUID > to `UuidDecl` somewhere, perhaps on the `ASTContext`). As per Richard comment. I have added a UuidDecl owned by the uuid attribute. This patch concerns only this change. It is not a patch to fix the bug yet. I want to make sure that we are in agreement with my changes first. Then I will change the code that deal with ParseCXUuid. Comments are welcome. Thanks. https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
