rnk wrote: > If the function-local types should not be ODR-uniqued, then dropping the > identifier field sounds correct.
I can't speak to the complexities of the alternative, but I'm immediately suspicious of this direction. We have stable manglings for static locals in inline functions and static data members of local classes and static locals in methods in local classes in inline functions... Surely if we can compute a unique mangled name for this local class, we should use it as the identifier and merge it. It seems important that, for size reasons, we figure out a way to do this for lambdas, which are common in inline functions in headers. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75385 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
