aprantl added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenObjCXX/encode.mm:93-94
// FIXME: This difference is due to D76801. It was probably an unintentional
change. Maybe we want to undo it?
- // CHECKCXX98: @_ZN11rdar93574002ggE ={{.*}} constant [49 x i8]
c"{vector<float, rdar9357400::fixed<4, -1> >=[4f]}\00"
- // CHECKCXX20: @_ZN11rdar93574002ggE ={{.*}} constant [48 x i8]
c"{vector<float, rdar9357400::fixed<4, -1>>=[4f]}\00"
+ // CHECKCXX98: @_ZN11rdar93574002ggE ={{.*}} constant [45 x i8]
c"{vector<float, rdar9357400::fixed<4> >=[4f]}\00"
+ // CHECKCXX20: @_ZN11rdar93574002ggE ={{.*}} constant [44 x i8]
c"{vector<float, rdar9357400::fixed<4>>=[4f]}\00"
extern const char gg[] = @encode(vector4f);
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> aprantl wrote:
> > Michael137 wrote:
> > > Michael137 wrote:
> > > > dblaikie wrote:
> > > > > @aprantl any idea if this is good/OK? (I guess it probably is - but
> > > > > maybe these strings were never meant to ignore/suppress default
> > > > > arguments of any kind? or maybe this is an ABI sort of thing where it
> > > > > suppressing some but not others is now unchangeable?)
> > > > Good point. There was a thread on the cfe mailing list a while ago
> > > > about the last time this broke:
> > > > https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2020-November/067194.html
> > > >
> > > > This was @rsmith's stance:
> > > > ```
> > > > I think some of the other recent TypePrinter changes might also risk
> > > > changing the @encode output. Generally it seems unwise for @encode to be
> > > > using the type pretty-printer if it wants to be ABI-stable; I don't
> > > > think
> > > > it's reasonable to expect any guarantees as to the stability of
> > > > pretty-printed type names. I think USR generation suffers from similar
> > > > problems; it too uses the type pretty-printer to generate
> > > > supposedly-ABI-stable keys in at least some cases.
> > > > ```
> > > see https://reviews.llvm.org/D90622
> > To me it really looks like the intention of the feature is to not
> > substitute default parameters. But if we stop doing this now it will likely
> > result in a surprising code size increase, that may not be considered worth
> > it compared to the risk of breaking ABI by changing a default template
> > parameter.
> >
> > As far as this patch is concerned, it's neutral to this decision (which may
> > not have been a conscious one).
> > It's certainly not good that every type printer change is an ABI break.
> Awesome, thanks for tracking down that context @Michael137.
>
> Not quite sure I'm following you @aprantl, but I think you're saying this
> change is OK/seems consistent with other changes?
The current code (for @encode and USRs) seems to assume that TypePrinter output
is stable.
I (personally) think that assumption ought to be wrong, because otherwise we'd
never be able to make improvements such as this patch.
Aside from my personal preferences, practically this patch causes a problem for
shipping an Objective-C compiler, since this is an ABI-breaking change. That's
why I'd like to hear from someone with more insight into how `@encoding` is
used in Objective-C wether this is something we need to be concerned about. If
it is a concern we may need to add a TypePrinter configuration optimized for
stability that preserves the current output format in eternity.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D139986/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D139986
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
