On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Sebastian Pop <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> Eric, Marshall,
> any suggestions on how to fix the backwards compatibility issue?
The routine *has* to be in the dylib.
That being said, that doesn't mean that the version in the dylib must be

I have an idea; it involves a macro that is sometimes "inline" and
sometimes not, and changes when you're building the library vs. when you're
just including the headers.

I'll play with that and put something up here.

-- Marshall
cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to