On Monday 09 September 2024 09:40:41 Jacek Caban wrote: > On 7.09.2024 00:00, Pali Rohár wrote: > > So maybe the imp symbol could be included only for gcc/binutils builds? > > > I think that we don't want to introduce differences like that. Ideally, we > should be able to mix tools with crt builds with another tools (so, for > example, use crt built with GCC with clang+lld and the other way around).
Martin in other email pointed that there are such differences due to llvm's dlltool is different from binutils's dlltool (usage of short vs long imports and non-usage of weak symbols). So as I understood, mixing is currently not possible. But I agree with you that mixing could be nice feature to have. > > As I mentioned, I think that it's better to prevent people from adding bogus > dllimport in the future code than silently accepting it. There is a concern > that such code may already exist and if it does, we shouldn't break it. But > the fact that UCRT was fine without the symbol for years suggests that it's > not a problem in practice. > > > Jacek As I said, feel free to drop this imp symbol completely. It was just a my idea that it could be useful. But I fully understand your concern that it was not there before and seems that it is not needed in practice. I agree with you that the best would be to teach binutils's ld to do conversion with warning, like it is in msvc or clang/llvm. But this is long-term... _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
