handy. It can be done, but we would have to build a derived-to-base cast
during codegen to compute the correct this pointer.
I will handle covariant returns next.
llvm-svn: 159350
the correct this pointer. There is some potential for sharing a bit more
code with canDevirtualizeMemberFunctionCalls, but that can be done in an
independent patch.
llvm-svn: 159326
I've added an extra FileCheck pass for that with an extra "CURRENT" prefix.
I've carefully chosed the CURRENT/CORRECT prefixes so they
a) are self-descriptive
b) have the same length so the mangling between the current and the correct version is obvious
Feel free to ask me to change the prefixes if you know a better alternative.
llvm-svn: 159250
to see if we had an underlying final class or method, but we would then
use the cast type to do the call, resulting in a direct call to the wrong
method.
llvm-svn: 159212
literal helper functions. All helper functions (global
and locals) use block_invoke as their prefix. Local literal
helper names are prefixed by their enclosing mangled function
names. Blocks in non-local initializers (e.g. a global variable
or a C++11 field) are prefixed by their mangled variable name.
The descriminator number added to end of the name starts off
with blank (for first block) and _<N> (for the N+2-th block).
llvm-svn: 159206
semantics of a ctor/dtor function-try-block catch handler
by pushing a normal cleanup is not just overkill but actually
actively wrong when the handler contains an explicit return
(which is only legal in a dtor). Just emit the rethrow as
ordinary code at the fallthrough point. Fixes PR13102.
llvm-svn: 158488
- Support mangling virtual function tables (base tables need work on the
ManglerContext interface).
- Correct mangling of local scopes (i.e. functions and C++ methods).
- Replace every llvm_unreachable() for actually-reachable code with a
diagnostic.
llvm-svn: 158376
only using the linkage.
Use and test both, documenting that considering the visibility and linkage
of template parameters is a difference from gcc.
llvm-svn: 158309
struct HIDDEN foo {
};
template <class P>
struct bar {
};
template <>
struct HIDDEN bar<foo> {
DEFAULT static void zed();
};
void bar<foo>::zed() {
}
Before we would produce a hidden symbol in
struct HIDDEN foo {
};
template <class P>
struct bar {
};
template <>
struct bar<foo> {
DEFAULT static void zed();
};
void bar<foo>::zed() {
}
But adding HIDDEN to the specialization would cause us to produce a default
symbol.
llvm-svn: 157206
I'm pretty sure we are in fact doing the right thing here, but someone who knows the standard better should double-check that we are in fact supposed to zero out the member in the given testcase.
llvm-svn: 157138
* Don't copy the visibility attribute during instantiations. We have to be able
to distinguish
struct HIDDEN foo {};
template<class T>
DEFAULT void bar() {}
template DEFAULT void bar<foo>();
from
struct HIDDEN foo {};
template<class T>
DEFAULT void bar() {}
template void bar<foo>();
* If an instantiation has an attribute, it takes precedence over an attribute
in the template.
* With instantiation attributes handled with the above logic, we can now
select the minimum visibility when looking at template arguments.
llvm-svn: 156821
Eli Friedman