erichkeane added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1717
+ Out << '8';
+ for (const char *NS : {"__swift_cc", "__Swift"})
+ mangleSourceName(NS);
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > rsmith wrote:
> > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > When I implemented regcall, it was brought up that this was likely a
> > > > bad idea, and to just choose a letter for mangleCallingConvention. It
> > > > is a really stable list as it is, and if you avoid ones in the
> > > > immediate pattern, you'll be fine.
> > > If you can get someone at Microsoft to sign off on us using a specific
> > > letter, that seems fine. Otherwise, because we don't define the ABI, we
> > > don't get to invent extensions to it, and we should instead pick
> > > something (like this) that we can be confident won't conflict with future
> > > official mangling extensions
> > Hmm... well, when we did it with RegCall, we didn't get them to 'sign off'
> > so to speak, but simply alerted them about it after the fact and they
> > promised to keep an eye on it.
> This is a fairly well established technique within clang, we already use this
> for a large number of C types (e.g. `_Complex`, `_Atomic`, etc) which MSVC
> does not yet support and may at some point.
Types are WAAAY different from calling conventions IMO. putting a type in a
__clang namespace makes a lot of sense. Putting a function into an arbitrary
namespace is way different.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42768
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
