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
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
It isn't a standoff, we can choose to just fix the issue and be compatible,
if we want.
I guess you're right and I'm probably using the wrong word - English is not my
first language. ;-)
But I meant that they could have made the same choice to be compatible (by
fixing the issue
in their
On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:30 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'
This patch fixes PR libobjc/49883. To fix it, I installed clang and tried out
what
happens if you compile Objective-C code using clang and targetting the GCC
runtime.
Unfortunately, the report was correct in that clang is producing incorrect code
and
abusing the higher bits of the class-info
