rnk added a comment. In D64067#1568533 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64067#1568533>, @andrew.w.kaylor wrote:
> In this review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D6260) @rsmith mentions that this > should also have an effect on name mangling. I'm not sure that's consistent with GCC, at least not anymore: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/eUviCd Looks like you can still have an overload set with double and long double, even if they both use the same representation. This is a backend -m flag, after all, so that seems reasonable to me. > What will this do if the user calls a library function that expects a long > double? What does gcc do in that case? Looks like it passes according to the usual 64-bit IEEE double representation. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64067/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64067 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
