[Bug other/53587] New: [manual] Option -mms-bitfields not documented

2012-06-06 Thread mity at morous dot org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53587

 Bug #: 53587
   Summary: [manual] Option -mms-bitfields not documented
Classification: Unclassified
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: trivial
  Priority: P3
 Component: other
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: m...@morous.org


The web page about changes in 4.7 (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html)
mentions the option -mms-bitfields, but manual for 4.7 does not document it
(at least the chapter "Option summary" misses it).

[Bug target/64384] mingw-w64: stdcall function returning an aggregate is incompatible with MS ABI

2014-12-30 Thread mity at morous dot org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64384

--- Comment #4 from mity  ---
Daniel, COM interface should be, by definition, language agnostic. COM can be
called from C++ as well as from C, and also COM object may be implemented in
C++ as well as C. This implies that (at least for stdcall, as COM uses stdcall
convention) there shouldn't be any difference between C and C++.

[Bug target/64384] New: mingw-w64: stdcall function returning an aggregate is incompatible with MS ABI

2014-12-23 Thread mity at morous dot org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64384

Bug ID: 64384
   Summary: mingw-w64: stdcall function returning an aggregate is
incompatible with MS ABI
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: target
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: mity at morous dot org

When using COM interface (i.e. calling stdcall function/method), aggregates are
returned through an implicit parameter after the this/interface pointer,
according to MS ABI. However it is not so when using gcc.

This issue manifests itself when e.g. calling ID2D1RenderTarget::GetSize() from
 as discussed here:

https://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/mailman/mingw-w64-public/?style=threaded&viewmonth=201412&viewday=23


Wine team encountered the issue too, they seem to "solve" the issue on their
side by ugly hacks and changing prototypes of the relevant functions for now:

https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2014-September/134351.html