Hi Saleem, Any updated comments on this? Thanks.
Logan On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Logan Chien <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Saleem, > > Sorry for the late reply. > > Although I am not strongly oppose to the idea to provide both inline and > extern version, I am concerned that exporting these symbols will further > fragmentize the ecosystem. With these symbol exported, some application > will start to simply declaring their own prototype and referencing the > these functions directly instead of including <unwind.h>. IMO, it should > be conservative to extend an ABI especially when the extension is neither > documented nor de facto in the ARM ecosystem. > > > On the other hand, when applications are using the interfaces, expecting > the unwind APIs, I think that they should continue to function. Providing > both the external as well as the inlined version should achieve that. > > In fact, this is what I wish to avoid. IMO, for the application > developers, they should simply include <unwind.h> if they need these > functions, instead of declaring their own function prototype. > > Sincerely, > Logan >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
