> (For the types you do have, there's a need to define C++ name mangling.
I mentioned this before, and I don't have a good solution for it. Both C++ and LTO need a mangled form of __intN types.
> (For the types you do have, there's a need to define C++ name mangling.
I mentioned this before, and I don't have a good solution for it. Both C++ and LTO need a mangled form of __intN types.