[cfe-dev] Microsoft ABI Support vs. ms_struct & Removing -mms-bitfields

[Anton Korobeynikov]

Both actually. Given that -mms-bitfields is a valid gcc option we also
need to support it.

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> Do you mean command line or ABI compatibility?  Whatever mingw does for
> bitfield layout, we should match it when the triple says mingw. Users
> shouldn't have to add -mms-bitfields.  I'd have to double check its layout.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Anton Korobeynikov
> <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote:
>>
>> > Can we get rid of mms-bitfields in favor of ms_struct?  Is anyone using
>> > mms-bitfields?  Because mms-bitfields is global, it applies to the entire
>> > #include chain for a TU and can cause system structs etc to be laid out
>> > incorrectly and potentially silently break standard library
>> > interfaces/linking to TUs that don't have mms-bitfields, etc.
>> Will this break compatibility with mingw? If yes, then mms-bitfields
>> should stay.
>>
>> --
>> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>> Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>



-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University