> OK, I know Tim has replied to this thread, but I just want to make sure > there are no surprises.
I am watching, and broadly support the inclusion of the NEON improvements (and the mangling one myself -- Clang 3.4 was broken and in ABI violation in that respect, I don't like providing compatibility with broken). But I definitely wouldn't press for any special ABI consideration to be granted to us at the LLVM level. I was also waiting for some general consensus on the ABI issue before weighing in. Cheers. Tim. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
