Michael137 added a comment. > The construction of the mangled name does not require getting just the abi > tags of the constructor itself right. Rather, it requires knowing the abi tag > annotations of all arguments (template and regular) of the constructor, and > template arguments of all enclosing classes. Is the information in this patch > enough to reconstruct this name > (_ZN2S1I1AB4asdfE2S2I1BB4asdfEC2I1CB4asdfEET_1DB4asdf, a.k.a, > S1<A[abi:asdf]>::S2<B[abi:asdf]>::S2<C[abi:asdf]>(C[abi:asdf], D[abi:asdf]))?
That's a fair point. I purposefully didn't support abi_tag's on all possible declarations because that would've ballooned the debug-info size too much. And we get away with it because libc++ exclusively tags functions. But of course there's no guarantee that they won't start tagging structures or namespaces > we could at least solve the first problem fairly easily by making the extra > constructor an extension -- either an extra extension DIE, or just an extra > attribute (with the other linkage name) on the existing constructor. For the > second part, I could imagine some kind of an extension for the asm annotation > for constructors, which would allow one to pass two mangled names instead of > one. I have no idea how hard would it be to implement it though... I've thought about doing it that way for a bit too. It does seem like a more consistent approach. What I concluded was that LLDB would have a hard time with this sort of setup. E.g., how would we know which subprogram (and thus which linkage name) to construct the single `CXXConstructorDecl` with? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144181/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144181 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
