rnk planned changes to this revision. rnk added a comment. I guess that was premature, I suppose I should test these cases John enumerated:
> I think some basic validation of that is probably called for before > committing. The obvious places to check: > > - a function pointer type > - a function reference type > - a member function pointer type > - a template argument that's just a function type, not a function pointer or > reference type > - a function that happens to be declared with this calling convention (this > probably shouldn't include the CC in the mangling, and if GCC mangles this it > should probably be considered a bug) > - a specialization of a function template that happens to be declared with > this calling convention (this also probably shouldn't include the CC in the > mangling, but it's okay to match GCC if it does) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55672/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55672 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
