[Symbol Names] Workaround: Mangle names for macOS

[SAtacker]

• Prepend _ before looking for symbols
• Currently the interface is not unified and solutions like a global prefix would work better.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (d294b07) 77.55% compared to head (bed72f4) 77.56%. Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/CppInterOp/pull/177?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #177 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 77.55% 77.56% ======================================= Files 8 8 Lines 2887 2897 +10 ======================================= + Hits 2239 2247 +8 - Misses 648 650 +2 ``` | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/CppInterOp/pull/177?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [lib/Interpreter/Compatibility.h](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/CppInterOp/pull/177?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research#diff-bGliL0ludGVycHJldGVyL0NvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkuaA==) | `90.90% <85.71%> (-0.76%)` | :arrow_down: | | [lib/Interpreter/CppInterOp.cpp](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/CppInterOp/pull/177?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research#diff-bGliL0ludGVycHJldGVyL0NwcEludGVyT3AuY3Bw) | `85.42% <83.33%> (-0.02%)` | :arrow_down: | | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/CppInterOp/pull/177?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [lib/Interpreter/Compatibility.h](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/CppInterOp/pull/177?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research#diff-bGliL0ludGVycHJldGVyL0NvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkuaA==) | `90.90% <85.71%> (-0.76%)` | :arrow_down: | | [lib/Interpreter/CppInterOp.cpp](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/CppInterOp/pull/177?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research#diff-bGliL0ludGVycHJldGVyL0NwcEludGVyT3AuY3Bw) | `85.42% <83.33%> (-0.02%)` | :arrow_down: |

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[SAtacker]

@vgvassilev would this work?

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[mcbarton]

Just thought I'd add a comment that I tested this PR on an osx arm machine with Clang-REPL on, with a patched clang 16, and it passes all the tests for CppInterOp.

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"