0xdc03 added a comment. In D143803#4155266 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143803#4155266>, @erichkeane wrote:
> I think updating that test with this additional note is the right thing to do. Will do, will also add checks for the fix-its. > As far as that note, saying 'mangled name' is perhaps not correct there, > since what we really care is that it is the name-as-emitted to the linker. I > don't have an idea on exactly what to call it. If we could come up with a > better phrase, it probably makes the diagnostic on the thing not being a > function. First few that come to mind: - ABI-mangled symbol - Linked symbol - Externally-visible name It may also be worth splitting the diagnostic for `ifunc`s and `alias`es to be something like: - `ifunc`: the function specified in an `ifunc` must refer to its <mangled name> - `alias`: the function or variable specified in an `alias` must refer to its <mangled name> I feel externally-visible name fits the best, though it doesn't really make sense with internal linkage. > ALSO, it would be worth updating the error here to mention that it must point > to a defined function, <x, y, Z> (where x,y,z are the things that it is > allowed to target). Hmm, I do not really understand this point, could you please clarify it? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143803/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143803 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
