[patch][pr22217] Use the most recent decl for mangling

John McCall rjmccall at apple.com
Fri Jan 23 12:40:25 PST 2015

> On Jan 23, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 January 2015 at 14:34, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com <mailto:rafael.espindola at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> How is it not a viable fight?  Is the section attribute coming from a completely different place?  Or are you suggesting that it is never viable to tell people that they ought to fix their code, no matter how unnecessarily perverse it is?  A section should be an intrinsic part of an definition, saying that you can’t define the same thing in multiple inconsistent ways is not even slightly unreasonable.
>> The bug first got reported to us while trying to build glibc. The bug Richard noticed was fixed in gcc because it was breaking the linux kernel. If anyone thinks it is productive to try to get them to change, go for it.
> Sorry, do these open-source projects no longer accept patches?  Adding section attributes after a definition does not seem defensible to me, and I would guess that the declarations are actually in the same file, just in the wrong order.
> Maybe, but I have better things to do than being a message boy between your opinion on gnu extensions and their use of them.

Rafael, you are taking this very personally and apparently trying to pick a fight.  I’m sorry, but putting visibility aside, this is not the right fix, and this code should be considered ill-formed.  We should not allow declarations following a definition to add section attributes, and we should not allow redeclarations to add asm attributes at all.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150123/310327d8/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list