compnerd added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1717
+ Out << '8';
+ for (const char *NS : {"__swift_cc", "__Swift"})
+ mangleSourceName(NS);
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> 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.
Agreed. We could go with @rnk's suggestion of wrapping the type into a
`template <typename T> struct __Swift::SwiftCC<T>;`.
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
