[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane abandoned this revision. erichkeane added a comment. Superceded by: https://reviews.llvm.org/D147655 CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commit

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

rjmccall added a comment. In D126818#3954139 , @erichkeane wrote: > In D126818#3954137 , @rjmccall > wrote: > >> To be clear, my opinion is just that the requested change is implementable, >> as I understand it

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3954137 , @rjmccall wrote: > To be clear, my opinion is just that the requested change is implementable, > as I understand it. I agree that each version of what we THINK the requested change might be is implementa

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

rjmccall added a comment. To be clear, my opinion is just that the requested change is implementable, as I understand it. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3943071 , @dfrib wrote: > In D126818#3941201 , @erichkeane > wrote: > >> [...] particularly since the suggested wording says the opposite of what I >> THOUGHT the discussio

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

dfrib added a comment. In 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 come

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3941165 , @dfrib wrote: > In D126818#3941036 , @erichkeane > wrote: > >> In D126818#3940898 , @dfrib wrote: >> >>> In D126818#39357

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

dfrib added a comment. In D126818#3941036 , @erichkeane wrote: > In D126818#3940898 , @dfrib wrote: > >> In D126818#3935740 , @rjmccall >> wrote: >> >>> I'm too often sl

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3940898 , @dfrib wrote: > In D126818#3935740 , @rjmccall > wrote: > >> I'm too often slow to actually apply edits to the ABI document. There's >> been plenty of time for f

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

dfrib added a comment. In D126818#3935740 , @rjmccall wrote: > I'm too often slow to actually apply edits to the ABI document. There's been > plenty of time for feedback on this one; go ahead and act like it's accepted. CWG 2596 was discussed at Kona a

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3935740 , @rjmccall wrote: > I'm too often slow to actually apply edits to the ABI document. There's been > plenty of time for feedback on this one; go ahead and act like it's accepted. Ah! I see! I thought last

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

rjmccall added a comment. I'm too often slow to actually apply edits to the ABI document. There's been plenty of time for feedback on this one; go ahead and act like it's accepted. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126818

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane updated this revision to Diff 475836. erichkeane added a comment. Updated to work via option-3 above, I believe this is the appropriate solution based on the itanium proposal and the C++ standard. @rjmccall, what concerns do we still have about Itanium being willing to add this? Do

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3563376 , @erichkeane wrote: > In D126818#3562355 , @tahonermann > wrote: > >>> Note we might be confused, the parens there aren't completely clear as to >>> what your int

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3562355 , @tahonermann wrote: >> Note we might be confused, the parens there aren't completely clear as to >> what your intent is. > > Well, I know that I'm confused and not clear what my intent is :) > > I asked t

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

tahonermann added a comment. > Note we might be confused, the parens there aren't completely clear as to > what your intent is. Well, I know that I'm confused and not clear what my intent is :) I asked the question because there appears to be an asymmetry between (temp.friend)p9 sentence 1

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3555843 , @aaron.ballman wrote: > I'm a bit uneasy that this is implementing something that's not yet been > accepted into the Itanium ABI document. That runs the risk of requiring an > ABI break if the Itanium do

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

aaron.ballman added a comment. I'm a bit uneasy that this is implementing something that's not yet been accepted into the Itanium ABI document. That runs the risk of requiring an ABI break if the Itanium document changes directions before finalizing. Also, what should we be doing for the Micros

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3554617 , @tahonermann wrote: > I wonder if I'm reading (temp.friend)p9` sentence 2 > correctly. Which of these > should it be parsed as? > > 1. A (friend function

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

tahonermann added a comment. I wonder if I'm reading (temp.friend)p9` sentence 2 correctly. Which of these should it be parsed as? 1. A (friend function template with a constraint) that depends on a template parameter from an enclosing template

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane planned changes to this revision. erichkeane added a comment. In D126818#3551504 , @erichkeane wrote: > Note this was mentioned as a 'must also do' in my discussion on deferred > constraints with @rsmith, however as this already fails, I don'

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane added a subscriber: rsmith. erichkeane added a comment. Note this was mentioned as a 'must also do' in my discussion on deferred constraints with @rsmith, however as this already fails, I don't see this as a prerequisite. However, I think this is easy enough to just do. THAT SAID: T

[PATCH] D126818: Itanium ABI: Implement mangling for constrained friends

erichkeane created this revision. erichkeane added reviewers: rjmccall, clang-language-wg. Herald added a project: All. erichkeane requested review of this revision. Thanks to concepts, C++ can now have friends that differ by their containing function. Because of this, we need to differentiate on