From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 296663A9DC3F for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 10:38:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 296663A9DC3F Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52218) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lebP1-00040S-DM for gcc@gnu.org; Thu, 06 May 2021 06:38:43 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]:39902) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lebOz-0008WU-3s for gcc@gnu.org; Thu, 06 May 2021 06:38:43 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id i81so5084974oif.6 for ; Thu, 06 May 2021 03:38:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pgqXbBeQzl12aQd9n0ERmfNsrClv2tuqN2bYtIUqFMQ=; b=Jre1pmYzGFRBeQ0SAaQeaCA/5Gf8cz6YCpEBZJ5JX5EqPPfBTCeODzx6s6C70dDUBf A+gA/JiCfBS1IYtAIIHzkYBHqpISZNCGh1KiyZ6FfaEoxJNCix7cPhGYeuPQY5uK1WJo +3yCM7r3ifNVwmIDOZPgK5vTaU4jxqGc5SFPSaegNW9eT2VoNPXIK8wcX4a6mL3XS4nd NUQNqAlkrNLxv1/LWG83rbyzZQw4mYCgcuHGaZ6zUjI9n/MOczTFuUH1Cw1ilmP15LJ5 hrfxCCvoay3zIeqZ5YR/timwzwe+S73YaFGQeynh8ESuLfFccXnAV2wq6YYO0/AuZp5K YuTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533EP+77Gs4HK5bEW/Gn0B9Fm3j48cmJgIQI+T6xWgGlG2dFuys4 Q9uxARlOnRHqA7gb4y4PVQe8zMmI0RdRFCVbhP2jiUOVm9s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/xXtdB3fyQqptPXol/zA0u3hsxmLgOeb3aNZ2cSvjsiOrWeJ8O/y4snlDPI4D5ZGp2ZBrGBf44unvPB6ZJkc= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ea06:: with SMTP id i6mr2642756oih.82.1620297518909; Thu, 06 May 2021 03:38:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ac9:7f0a:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 6 May 2021 03:38:38 -0700 (PDT) From: vsp 1729 Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 16:08:38 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: unsubscribe To: gcc@gnu.org Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e; envelope-from=vsp1729@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi1-x22e.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_UNSUB1, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 10:38:45 -0000 unsubscribe On Friday, April 30, 2021, Xun Li via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that when compiling lambda functions, the generated function > names use different conventions than GCC. > Example: https://godbolt.org/z/5qvqKqEe6 > The lambda in Clang is named "_Z3barIZ3foovE3$_0EvT_", while the one > in GCC is named "_Z3barIZ3foovEUlvE_EvT_". Their demangled names are > also different ("void bar(foo()::$_0)" vs "void > bar(foo()::{lambda()#1})"). > Lambdas are not covered by the ABI so this is OK. > However there are use-cases where I find it very inconvenient when > they generate different names. For example, if we are to compare the > performance difference of the same software compiled under Clang and > GCC, the perf stack traces will look very different because of the > naming differences, making it hard to compare. > Is there any particular reason that Clang uses a different naming > convention for lambdas, and would there be push-backs if we were to > make it consistent with GCC? > Thanks. > > -- > Xun > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >