andreybokhanko marked 3 inline comments as done. andreybokhanko added a comment.
Aaron, Reid, David, thank you for the review! I resolved some of your comments. As for In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18596#386841, @aaron.ballman wrote: > I'd like to see some Sema tests for sanity checking; like applying > __unaligned to a non-pointer type, to a declaration, when -fno-ms-extensions > is enabled, etc. Do we want to accept __unaligned for non-pointer types, as MS compiler does? Their doc (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177389.aspx) only mentions pointers, but cl.exe also accepts non-pointers with __unaligned, with no visible effect to generated code (including mangling). Clang currently does accept this, so starting to issue an error would be a regression. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18596#387129, @majnemer wrote: > I didn't implement a mangling for `__unaligned` because our implementation of > it is broken. > It should not be modeled as an attribute, it should be modeled as a > qualifier because it is possible to overload on it. I see. Well, now we have not quite compatible implementation + incorrect mangling. My patch fixes mangling part. IMHO, implementation part should be fixed in a separate patch. Andrey http://reviews.llvm.org/D18596 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
