On 9 October 2013 14:48, Anton Korobeynikov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Doesn't mingw need these manglings to match the Windows C ABI? > Correct, it does need it.
Good catch. The attached patch handles mingw too. > Another problem, which is much more severe, is that moving mangling in > clang will force non-clang users to handle the mangling by themselves. Judging from http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-February/059626.html that would be an welcome change. The mangling consists of adding how many bytes are used for arguments. If a frontend can produce a call at all it has that information. In any case. This patch changes only clang. Even if we decide to not change llvm, I think this patch is an improvement as it makes it possible for us to test that clang produces the desired name for C code (as we do for C++ already). > Also, keep in mind, that gcc on linux does support stdcall / fastcall > calling conventions, but does not mangle the stuff. That is also handled correctly. Cheers, Rafael
t.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
