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