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

[Reid Kleckner]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130831/4cb1f444/attachment.html>