aprantl added a comment. In D131335#3722595 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131335#3722595>, @Michael137 wrote:
> As @labath mentioned, we do force clang to preserve the linkage name via > `asm()`, but only for class member functions. This was added in > `675767a5910d2ec77ef8b51c78fe312cf9022896` (https://reviews.llvm.org/D40283) > to also support `abi_tag`! But that didn't cover templates functions: > > Use the DWARF linkage name when importing C++ methods. > When importing C++ methods into clang AST nodes from the DWARF symbol > table, preserve the DW_AT_linkage_name and use it as the linker > ("asm") name for the symbol. > > Concretely, this enables `expression` to call into names that use the > GNU `abi_tag` extension > > I tried adding an `AsmLabelAttr` to the `FunctionDecl`s we create when > parsing DWARF and it does fix the ABI-tag problem on my small test case. But > this only works because the way we create `FunctionTemplateDecl`s is > incorrect (as I've described in my previous comments). > > So the options are any combination of the following: > > 1. carry this patch forward (and possibly remove the `asm()` hack for C++ > member functions) > 2. Add the `asm()` attribute hack to all function declarations (or just when > we are dealing with template functions) > 3. Fix the way we generate `FunctionTemplateDecl`s when parsing DWARF (this > likely needs a change to DWARF generation) > > @aprantl @labath Any preference? To me it seems 1 and 3 are the more "proper" > way to fix this issue. And once we fix 3 (which we should do anyway) #2 may > break. The good thing about #2 is that we avoid searching object files, > improving performance. I think this sounds like a decent plan forward. I would suggest to start with (1) and then start a discussion about (3). Conceivably we could change the DWARF representation of function signatures to refer to `the DW_TAG_template_type_parameter` DIEs as types inside the `DW_AT_type`s of the other parameters. This is probably something we'd need to prototype in the LLDB debugger tuning first because it would confuse other consumers. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131335/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131335 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
