[PATCH] D19654: PR27132: Proper mangling for __unaligned qualifier (now with PR27367 fixed)

[Reid Kleckner via cfe-commits]

rnk added inline comments.

================
Comment at: lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:1583-1584
@@ -1579,2 +1582,4 @@
   case QMM_Result:
+    // Presence of __unaligned qualifier shouldn't affect mangling here.
+    Quals.removeUnaligned();
     if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa<TagType>(T)) {
----------------
majnemer wrote:
> andreybokhanko wrote:
> > majnemer wrote:
> > > andreybokhanko wrote:
> > > > Done. Test added.
> > > Hmm, can you give a concrete example why we need this line?
> > Sure. An example is:
> > 
> > __unaligned int unaligned_foo3() { return 0; }
> > 
> > MS mangles it as
> > 
> > ?unaligned_foo3@@YAHXZ
> > 
> > However, if __unaligned is taken into account, "if ((!IsPointer && Quals) || isa<TagType>(T))" computes to true and clang adds "?A", resulting to
> > 
> > ?unaligned_foo3@@YA?AHXZ
> > 
> > Yours,
> > Andrey
> > 
> Wait, I thought __unaligned can only apply to pointer types.  Is this not so?!
> Does `__unaligned int x;` really keep it's `__unaligned` qualifier?
Yeah it does:
  $ cat t.cpp
  __unaligned int x;
  $ cl -nologo -c t.cpp && dumpbin /symbols t.obj  | grep ?x
  t.cpp
  008 00000000 SECT3  notype       External     | ?x@@3HFA (int __unaligned x)


http://reviews.llvm.org/D19654