zahiraam added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576#1016588, @rsmith wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576#1016561, @majnemer wrote: > > > Here's my thinking: the `__uuidof` expression literally declares a variable > > called `_GUID_ddb47a6a_0f23_11d5_9109_00e0296b75d3` of type `__s_GUID` > > which is why it behaves the way it does: https://godbolt.org/g/74FY7U > > > This is an implementation detail leaking, though. no? Note that that is a > reserved name. > > > I don't think it is reasonable to invent new semantics which are different > > from the MSVC ones because we find the MSVC ones inelegant. > > I mostly agree, but my point is that this is *not* the MSVC semantics, it's > merely an implementation detail that non-conforming code happens to be able > to observe. Suppose that `type_info` objects were similarly accessible in > MSVC by guessing their mangled names. Would you be arguing that we should > inject variables for those too? (And note that it is *nearly* true that > `type_info` objects work that way: https://godbolt.org/g/zByFFg -- but the > parser gets confused somehow when you reference them.) The only difference I > can see between these cases is that the reserved name used for the GUID case > happens to not contain any ?s and @s, so happens to be utterable as an > identifier. > > We should not attempt to be compatible with the cases where MSVC's > implementation details happen to leak into user-visible semantics. > > > What is the relative upside to a new kind of Decl? Better AST fidelity? > > Yes, exactly. The same reason we don't desguar other things any more than we > have to. Before I start implementing this I want to make sure that we are on the same page on this. From your comments it looks like we do not want to create global variables for the uuid globals. I tend to agree with that. I do like the idea of creating a new Decl type for the uuid declspec. But I want to make sure that I understand what you are referring to. Currently this declaration: struct __declspec(uuid("{DDB47A6A-0F23-11D5-9109-00E0296B75D3}")) S1; a CXXRecordDecl type is generated with attributes (the uuid being an attribute). Are you proposing that instead a new type is generated for S1 say something like CXXUuidRecord? And create also a new TagType that corresponds to this new Decl? https://reviews.llvm.org/D43576 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
