search for: 0cbd0785

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "0cbd0785".

2013 Feb 20
0
[LLVMdev] x86_stdcallcc @<n> mangling vs. '\1' prefix [was: x86_stdcallcc and extra name mangling on Windows]
The patch looks incorrect. The code just needs to handle \1 properly and clang extended to add explicit \1 to the names which does not require mangling. I do not think that moving whole mangling to clang is a good idea, because then everyone who uses LLVM to call WinApi functions will need to mangle by hands. On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>
2013 Mar 29
2
[LLVMdev] x86_stdcallcc @<n> mangling vs. '\1' prefix [was: x86_stdcallcc and extra name mangling on Windows]
...> LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130328/0cbd0785/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: stdcall-double-mangle.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2505 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130328/0cbd0785/attachment.obj>
2013 Feb 20
4
[LLVMdev] x86_stdcallcc @<n> mangling vs. '\1' prefix [was: x86_stdcallcc and extra name mangling on Windows]
I don't remember anything other that what I've written in the bug João has mentioned. Probably something like this patch http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410#c6 ? 2013/2/20 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: > I think so. There have been other reports lately related to this being > wrong. > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410 > > CC'ing