On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Nicola Pero wrote: >>> Unfortunately, the report was correct in that clang is producing incorrect >>> code and >>> abusing the higher bits of the class->info field to store some other >>> information. >> >> The clang folks are pretty responsive. I'd always give them a chance to >> `fix' thier code, before putting hack-arounds in our code in general. > > That discussion did happen in private. It wasn't pleasant. They won't > change their code.
Right, then, it isn't a bug, but rather a shared ABI that we choose to be compatible with. We fix in in our system by noticing how we must set or not set the bit in our abi document and code and go on with life, it is too short. > It's a standoff It isn't a standoff, we can choose to just fix the issue and be compatible, if we want.
