[cfe-dev] name compatibility with llvm-gcc?

[Nuno Lopes]

>> I noticed that struct and union LLVM type names generated by clang and
>> llvm-gcc don't follow the same naming convention, which is causing  me 
>> some
>> headaches.
>> llvm-gcc uses the following convention: struct.struct_name;
>> struct.union_name
>> while clang uses: struct._struct_name; union._union_name.
>>
>> Can we change clang so that clang respects llvm-gcc's ABI? I would
>> appreciate this change (I'm using clang, while my colleague is using
>> llvm-gcc..).
>
> Sounds fine with me, it should be an easy change.

Arg, actually my analysis was wrong.
The problem is that function decls save the canonical type. E.g.:

typedef struct _zend_op_array zend_op_array;
struct _zend_op_array {  ...  };

zend_op_array *foo() { return 0; }

When codegening the function foo I get the 'struct _zend_op_array', instead 
of zend_op_array. This is the reason why I was getting the 
'struct._struct_name' style names.

So this problem isn't that easy to "fix". It would require saving the 
non-canonical type instead of the canonic one (that I think you don't want 
to do?).


> > Can we change clang so that clang respects llvm-gcc's ABI? I would
> > appreciate this change (I'm using clang, while my colleague is using
> > llvm-gcc..).
>
> This has nothing to do with the ABI, and in fact it doesn't affect the
> code's semantics at all; using the term ABI just confuses the issue.

I called it ABI just in the sense that I wanted to link code generated by 
the 2 different frontends. I need to fill in structures at runtime that were 
compiled with either llvm-gcc or clang (I need a StructType* out of a name). 
Anyway just forget the ABI thing.. :)

Nuno