On 19 November 2013 16:20, Reid Kleckner <r...@google.com> wrote: > I guess this is http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12684 . > > Is this worth a flag, or should we just tell people to go use 3.3?
I can add a flag, but note that 3.4 already branched. I would not backport this patch to 3.4. So we would have * 3.4 builds with gcc >= 4.5 and uses the gcc 4.6 abi on mingw * 3.5 build with gcc >= 4.7 and uses the 4.7 abi on mingw. > GCC > seems to have an -mabi=(sysv|ms) flag that looks like a much weaker form of > our -cxx-abi flag, in that it only tries to solve COM ABI compatibility. > > gcc users appear to wish they had a flag > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-05/msg00325.html), but the only reason that > particular user wanted a flag was due to our own mingw ABI incompatibility! > Oops. > > ---- > > There's one other huge thing here: "- Windows mingw targets are using the > -mms-bitfields option by default." > > Our -[fm]ms-bitfields support is not very good. The logic is now duplicated > between MicrosoftRecordLayoutBuilder and the normal RecordLayoutBuilder, and > I've heard from Warren that the existing logic is incorrect in some cases > anyway. > > IMO we should factor it so that have separate code doing the C++ object > record layout which then calls down into shared bitfield layout code when it > encounters a string of bitfields. I might end up looking at this. I got into this by trying to bootstrap with mingw to test a completely different issues :-( Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
