Hi Dmitry,
(In reply to comment #53)
> Hi Stefan,
>
> This is an important issue in Clang and I would like to move on with patch
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834 (also see my last comment there). If you
> don't mind, I'll get your patch split it into smaller patches and start
> resolving
Hi Andrey,
(In reply to comment #45)
> Stefan [Bühler], do you plan to finish work on the patch? Do you need help
> with code review? (I just added Aaron Ballman, who is code owner for
> attributes).
I think the attributes part of the patch is quite good compared with
the mangling part...
(In reply to comment #32)
> (In reply to comment #31)
> > (In reply to comment #28)
> > > The incompatibility was introduced by gcc's "automatic tagging of
> > > functions
> > > and variables with tagged types where the tags are not already reflected
> > > in
> > > the mangled name".
> > >
> >
(In reply to comment #26)
> (In reply to comment #25)
> > 3. The problem only started because distros have chosen GCC 5 as their
> > default compilers for the current releases, which defaults to C++11.
>
> No gcc-5 doesn't default to C++11 and the issue here has nothing to do with
> C++98 vs.
(In reply to comment #34)
> (In reply to comment #33)
> > I really see no option in this; if the return type is tagged, the tag must
> > be
> > present in the signature somehow, or you can never mix different ABIs in the
> > same binary.
>
> This was probably already discussed, but if you mangle
(In reply to comment #39)
> (In reply to comment #38)
> > The new ABI requires the full gcc abi-tag support to be compatible with
> > gcc. If you compile everything with clang and disable dual ABI support
> > you can get away with less, but what is the point? Just use the clang
> > libc++ instead,
Tracking my patch now in http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1488254
Title:
clang++ no longer ABI-compatible with g++
To manage notifications about this
Created attachment 14874
abi-tag patch version 4
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1488254
Title:
clang++ no longer ABI-compatible with g++
To manage notifications about this bug go
Created attachment 14872
abi-tag patch version 3
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1488254
Title:
clang++ no longer ABI-compatible with g++
To manage notifications about this bug go
Created attachment 14873
document abi-tag mangling
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1488254
Title:
clang++ no longer ABI-compatible with g++
To manage notifications about this bug go
Created attachment 14868
second attempt to add abi_tag
I came up with a list of various tests and compared the results.. and
worked hard to improve the patch :)
http://files.stbuehler.de/test-itanium-mangle.html shows the test
results (produced with http://files.stbuehler.de/test-itanium-
Created attachment 14852
first attempt to add abi_tag support
As debian testing now moved to the new gcc abi and I still want to be
able to use clang I tried patching it myself.
Certainly not perfect, and you'll notice some places where I am
uncertain whether abi tags need to be emitted in the
12 matches
Mail list logo
