hans added a comment.
Thanks!
================
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:888-891
auto EnumeratorI = ED->enumerator_begin();
- assert(EnumeratorI != ED->enumerator_end());
- Name += "<unnamed-enum-";
- Name += EnumeratorI->getName();
+ if (EnumeratorI == ED->enumerator_end()) {
+ Name += "<unnamed-tag";
+ } else {
----------------
majnemer wrote:
> Thinking about it some more, it'd be better if we handled this like the else
> case:
> Name += "<unnamed-type-$S";
> Name += llvm::utostr(Context.getAnonymousStructId(TD) + 1);
>
> Reason being that something like:
> struct S {
> enum {};
> enum {};
> };
>
> Would otherwise end up with two identical mangles.
>
> This would also make us more consistent with other mangles, for example:
> enum {} x;
> struct {} y;
>
> These are mangled as: <unnamed-type-x> and <unnamed-type-y>.
Okay, yeah that makes sense.
I just checked
struct S {
enum {};
enum {};
};
with MSVC, and they seem to give them identical mangling.
I have to head out, but will update the patch tomorrow morning unless you're
keen to do it :-)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47875
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
