Jud Craft wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand. How can LLVM-C be ABI-incompatible with plain
> GCC-C?
It's the ABI of:
llvm-g++ → LLVM → LLVM C backend → gcc
or:
Clang (C++) → LLVM → LLVM C backend → gcc
which is incompatible with the ABI of plain g++.
AFAICT, the native LLVM backends don't have that problem. The real problem
with C++ is that Clang's C++ support is experimental and incomplete, so
you're stuck with llvm-g++.
> I thought that C doesn't have any crazy name or symbol or virtual
> table mangling. The stuff should just work, right?
But this is about C++.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
