ABataev added a comment. In D71241#1782650 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241#1782650>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> In D71241#1782614 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241#1782614>, @ABataev wrote: > > > Actually, early resolution will break tbe tools, not help them. It will > > definitely break clangd, for example. The user will try to navigate to > > originally called function `base` and instead he will be redirected to the > > function `hst`. > > > And that is a good thing. Even if you argue it is not, *only* in the Sema > solution the tools have *all* the information available to redirect to the > base or variant function. > > In D71241#1782612 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241#1782612>, @ABataev wrote: > > > In D71241#1782504 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241#1782504>, @jdoerfert > > wrote: > > > > > Here, both the original callee (`wrong_ast`) and the actual callee `cpu` > > > are shown at the call site. > > > > > > Why would we not want that? > > > > > > You have wron idea about AST representation. If something is not printed in > > dump, it does not mean it does nit exist in AST. > > > This is plain insulting (again) and beyond the point. I just shown you that > the proposed solution has *all* the information in the AST available to be > used by tools, codegen, ... I did so because you claimed that would not be > the case, e.g. the AST would not represent the program faithfully. As you > see, all the original information is available. However, you still refuse to > acknowledge that and instead try to discredit me. I am tired of this kind of > "discussion", we went down this road before and, as it was back then, there > is nothing to be gained. It is harmful for the community and it is insulting > towards me. > > --- > > While we talk a lot about what you think is bad about this solution it seems > we ignore the problems in the current one. Let me summarize a few: > > - Take https://godbolt.org/z/XCjQUA where the wrong function is called in the > target region (because the "hack" to inject code in the wrong definition is > not applicable). No time for it, just short answers. No definition for the variant - no definition for the base. > - Take https://godbolt.org/z/Yi9Lht where the wrong function is called on the > host (no there is *no* alias hidden) GlobalAlias can be emitted only for definitions. No definition for variant - no aliasing. > - Take https://godbolt.org/z/2evvtN which shows that the alias solution is > incompatible with linking. Undefined behavior according to the standard. > - Take the `construct` context selector and the `begin/end declare variant` > construct which both cannot be implemented with aliases. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
