jdoerfert added a comment. In D71241#1782668 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241#1782668>, @ABataev wrote:
> In D71241#1782650 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241#1782650>, @jdoerfert wrote: > > > 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. This is perfectly valid code and with the current scheme impossible to support. >> - 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. Exactly, as above, this is a problem. >> - Take https://godbolt.org/z/2evvtN which shows that the alias solution is >> incompatible with linking. > > Undefined behavior according to the standard. I don't think so. If you do, please reference the rules this would violate. >> - Take the `construct` context selector and the `begin/end declare variant` >> construct which both cannot be implemented with aliases. This can also not be implemented in the alias scheme. 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
