Since the NTTP may need to be cast to the type when rebuilding the name,
check that the type can be rebuilt when determining whether a template
name can be simplified.
Since enumerators may not be available in every translation unit they
can't be reliably used to name entities. (this also makes simplified
template name roundtripping infeasible - since the expected name could
only be rebuilt if the enumeration definition could be found (or only if
it couldn't be found, depending on the context of the original name))
This information isn't preserved in the DWARF description of function
types (though probably should be - it's preserved on the function
declarations/definitions themselves through the DW_AT_noreturn attribute
- but we should move or also include that in the subroutine type itself
too - but for now, with it not being there, the DWARF is lossy and
can't be reconstructed)
Due to the way type units work, this would lead to a declaration in a
type unit of a local type in a CU - which is ambiguous. Rather than
trying to resolve that relative to the CU that references the type unit,
let's just not try to simplify these names.
Longer term this should be fixed by not putting the template
instantiation in a type unit to begin with - since it references an
internal linkage type, it can't legitimately be duplicated/in more than
one translation unit, so skip the type unit overhead. (but the right fix
for that is to move type unit management into a DICompositeType flag
(dropping the "identifier" field is not a perfect solution since it
breaks LLVM IR linking decl/def merging during IR linking))
Lambda names aren't entirely canonical (as demonstrated by the
cross-project-test added here) at the moment (we should fix that for a
bunch of reasons) - even if the template referencing them is
non-simplified, other names referencing /that/ template can't be
simplified either because type units might cause a different template to
be picked up that would conflict with the expected name.
(other than for roundtripping precision, it'd be OK to simplify types
that reference types that reference lambdas - but best be consistent
between the roundtrip/verify mode and the actual simplified template
names mode)
This excludes certain names that can't be rebuilt from the available
DWARF:
* Atomic types - no DWARF differentiating int from atomic int.
* Vector types - enough DWARF (an attribute on the array type) to do
this, but I haven't written the extra code to add the attributes
required for this
* Lambdas - ambiguous with any other unnamed class
* Unnamed classes/enums - would need column info for the type in
addition to file/line number
* noexcept function types - not encoded in DWARF
David Blaikie