rsmith added a comment.
In D147655#4649864 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147655#4649864>, @dyung wrote:
> Hi @rsmith, we have an internal test where your change seems to have changed
> the mangling in C++17 mode and wanted to check if that was intentional.
[...]
> Are these changes in non-C++20 mode intentional?
Yes, they're intentional. Unfortunately we could have mangling collisions here
when using the old ABI rule; these two different templates would have the same
mangling:
template <typename T, T I> T returnit() {return I;};
template <typename T, int I> T returnit() { return I; }
But... it looks like this case is missing from the list of affected cases in
the change description and the release notes. Sorry about that. Release notes
updated in rGaaa79a59317f859485d701d1eb68ac4cb213e1d1
<https://reviews.llvm.org/rGaaa79a59317f859485d701d1eb68ac4cb213e1d1>.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147655/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147655
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
