EricWF marked an inline comment as done.
EricWF added a comment.
@rsmith What should the visibility of the type name be in cases where the type
info is hidden?
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/ItaniumCXXABI.cpp:3033
+ return {llvm::GlobalValue::InternalLinkage,
+ llvm::GlobalValue::LinkOnceODRLinkage};
+ return {llvm::GlobalValue::InternalLinkage,
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Shouldn't this be based on the type's linkage? Eg:
>
> ```
> namespace { struct Incomplete; }
> auto x = typeid(Incomplete*);
> ```
>
> should have an `internal` type info name, not a `linkonce_odr` name. I think
> we should compute the linkage per the code below and then demote the type's
> linkage to internal in the incomplete-class case.
That sounds correct to me.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/ItaniumCXXABI.cpp:3034-3035
+ llvm::GlobalValue::LinkOnceODRLinkage};
+ return {llvm::GlobalValue::InternalLinkage,
+ llvm::GlobalValue::InternalLinkage};
+ }
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Should we promote the type info name in this case too? (We get here for the
> incomplete-class type info we generate as a detail of the pointer type info,
> but the names of such types are accessible via the <cxx_abi.h> interface, so
> it seems reasonable to apply the same global-uniqueness to them too.)
Hmm. I think it seems reasonable.
I don't think there exists a case where a user can perform `type_info` equality
or hashing on an incomplete class type, so in terms of solving the libc++ bug
I think it's unneeded. (which is why I omitted it).
I also don't see exactly what part of `cxxabi.h` might expose the `type_info`
to users in a way where type name pointer equality is important to the user.
What would you rather?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46665
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
