typeid (and a couple other non-standard places where we can transform an
unevaluated expression into an evaluated expression) is special
because it introduces an an expression evaluation context,
which conflicts with the mechanism to compute the current
lambda mangling context. PR12123.
I would appreciate if someone would double-check that we get the mangling
correct with this patch.
llvm-svn: 164658
change once it's been assigned. It can change in two ways:
1) In a template instantiation, the context declaration should be the
instantiated declaration, not the declaration in the template.
2) If a lambda appears in the pattern of a variadic pack expansion, the
mangling number will depend on the pack length.
llvm-svn: 160614
number + context) to the point where we initially start defining the
lambda, so that the linkage won't change when that information is made
available. Fixes the assertion in <rdar://problem/11182962>.
Plus, actually mangle the context of lambdas properly.
llvm-svn: 154029
stable mangling, since these lambdas can end up in multiple
translation units. Sema is responsible for deciding when this is the
case, because it's already responsible for choosing the mangling
number.
llvm-svn: 151029
default arguments of function parameters. This simple-sounding task is
complicated greatly by two issues:
(1) Default arguments aren't actually a real context, so we need to
maintain extra state within lambda expressions to track when a
lambda was actually in a default argument.
(2) At the time that we parse a default argument, the FunctionDecl
doesn't exist yet, so lambda closure types end up in the enclosing
context. It's not clear that we ever want to change that, so instead
we introduce the notion of the "effective" context of a declaration
for the purposes of name mangling.
llvm-svn: 151011
name mangling in the Itanium C++ ABI for lambda expressions is so
dependent on context, we encode the number used to encode each lambda
as part of the lambda closure type, and maintain this value within
Sema.
Note that there are a several pieces still missing:
- We still get the linkage of lambda expressions wrong
- We aren't properly numbering or mangling lambda expressions that
occur in default function arguments or in data member initializers.
- We aren't (de-)serializing the lambda numbering tables
llvm-svn: 150982
Eli Friedman