On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:42 PM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> (For the types you do have, there's a need to define C++ name mangling. > > I mentioned this before, and I don't have a good solution for it. > Both C++ and LTO need a mangled form of __intN types.
LTO shouldn't need any of this. Ideally we'd reduce the number of middle-end visible global trees down to the set that is fully defined by the target C ABI. All extra standard types relevant for frontends would simply be streamed (you can as well stream all trees, including the global ones - we chose to not stream them as optimization though and because of pointer comparisons with them throughout the middle-end, notably for va_list stuff). Richard.
