This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: symbol names are not created with stdcall syntax: MINGW, (GCC) 4.3.0 20061021
- From: "François-Xavier Coudert" <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: "Steve Kargl" <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- Cc: "Tobias Burnus" <burnus at net-b dot de>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, "GCC Development" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:31:28 +0100
- Subject: Re: symbol names are not created with stdcall syntax: MINGW, (GCC) 4.3.0 20061021
- References: <20070309133336.275890@gmx.net> <45F16CEF.889E2B59@dessent.net> <45F1796F.1030100@net-b.de> <45F17E43.A48EB89F@dessent.net> <20070309153648.GA70037@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <45F18446.6080103@net-b.de> <20070309162137.GA70362@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
It might be considered a backend issue, but in general it
is a binutils (so OP is in the wrong list!).
I beg to disagree with the "in general it is a binutils issue" part.
One of the posters explained why the information needed for name
decoration can't be determined at link-time (nor at assembly-time,
from what I understood). I think it's completely a compiler issue: if
there's a switch (-mrtd) to change the calling convention of the
generated code, there should probably be another one to also change
the naming convention accordingly.
On a related note, I found in gcc/config/i386/i386.c the following
comment: "The attribute stdcall is equivalent to RTD on a per module
basis." I think it's not true wrt to naming convention.
I otherwise perfectly agree with you about not adding yet another
extension to the Fortran front-end.
FX