sebpop added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24991#565861, @EricWF wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24991#565715, @mclow.lists wrote:
> > How does this play with existing binaries? Applications that expect these
> > functions to exist in the dylib?
> This patch is majorly ABI breaking, although we could probably find a
> formulation that wasn't.
any suggestions on how to fix the backwards compatibility issue?
cfe-commits mailing list