On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 06:30:53PM -0800, John McCall wrote: >> On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D443 >>> >>> Are you sure we actually *want* to expose this to users? >>> >>> I would like to mark the UBSan runtime handler functions as >>> __attribute__((coldcc)), and I think that would make sense for other >>> sanitizers too. >> >> Are we now willing to commit to a fixed ABI for coldcc? I thought we hadn't >> been. > > Implementing __attribute__((coldcc)) does not necessarily imply fixing > the ABI, provided that we document the attribute as such. It should > be safe to use in compiler_rt once we modify its build system to use the > just-built clang.
I agree that we could certainly expose a calling convention with zero binary-compatibility guarantees. I don't know if that would work for what Richard wants, though. Notably, you can't stick that sort of thing in a library that you haven't rev-locked to the compiler. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
