Re: [PATCH] D14179: Remove some legacy mingw-w64 gcc struct info

chapuni added a comment. Sorry, I supposed someone removed it. It was really buggy in past. Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D14179 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [PATCH] D14179: Remove some legacy mingw-w64 gcc struct info

martell added a comment. From what I can gather it made sense at the time of gcc 4.6 so I don't think anyone is at fault :) Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D14179 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [PATCH] D14179: Remove some legacy mingw-w64 gcc struct info

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL251930: Remove some legacy mingw-w64 gcc struct info (authored by martell). Changed prior to commit: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14179?vs=38744=39067#toc Repository: rL LLVM

Re: [PATCH] D14179: Remove some legacy mingw-w64 gcc struct info

rnk accepted this revision. rnk added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Yeah, lgtm. http://reviews.llvm.org/D14179 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [PATCH] D14179: Remove some legacy mingw-w64 gcc struct info

rnk added a comment. Rafael, we don't support pre GCC 4.7 mingw right? They switched to thiscall on 32bit, right? I think we can take a break for x64. http://reviews.llvm.org/D14179 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [PATCH] D14179: Remove some legacy mingw-w64 gcc struct info

Correct. I we just switched to the 4.7 abi in r197163. Cheers, Rafael On 29 October 2015 at 12:25, Reid Kleckner wrote: > rnk added a comment. > > Rafael, we don't support pre GCC 4.7 mingw right? They switched to thiscall > on 32bit, right? I think we can take a break for

Re: [PATCH] D14179: Remove some legacy mingw-w64 gcc struct info

awson added a subscriber: awson. awson added a comment. Btw, It is a terrible bug. It is hard to imagine how much C++ code it renders broken on 64-bit mingw-w64 clang. For example, any of hashtable-using code doesn't work etc etc. http://reviews.llvm.org/D14179