Some change in the latest source has completely broken linking for clang on Windows targeting gcc.
// ex_aclass.hpp
#ifndef EX_ACLASS_HPP
#define EX_ACLASS_HPP
#if defined(BLD_EX_EXAMPLE)
#define EX_DECL __attribute__((__dllexport__))
#else
#define EX_DECL __attribute__((__dllimport__))
#endif
class EX_DECL ex_aclass
{
public:
int a_function(long);
};
#endif // EX_ACLASS_HPP
// ex_aclass.cpp
#define BLD_EX_EXAMPLE
#include "ex_aclass.hpp"
int ex_aclass::a_function(long amt)
{
return(amt > 1000000 ? 10 : 20);
}
// Compile ex_aclass.cpp
clang++.exe -c -x c++ -D__MINGW_FORCE_SYS_INTRINS -O0 -g -fno-inline -Wall -g -march=i686 -m32 -o "ex_aclass.obj" "ex_aclass.cpp"
// Link into ex_ac.dll
clang++.exe" -o "ex_ac.dll" -Wl,-soname -Wl,ex_ac.dll -shared -Wl,--start-group "ex_aclass.obj" -Wl,-Bstatic -Wl,-Bdynamic -Wl,--end-group -g -march=i686 -m32
libmingw32.a(lib32_libmingw32_a-pseudo-reloc.o):pseudo-reloc.c:(.text+0x1d6): undefined reference to `__chkstk_ms'
clang++.exe: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
Nor does it matter what source file is used in general, whenever the link is done for anything the "undefined reference to `__chkstk_ms'" occurs.
Can some one of the clang developers please look at this ?
I am using clang on Windows with the 32-bit version of mingw-64/gcc-5.1 as i686-5.1.0-posix-dwarf-rt_v4-rev0.
I realize the current problems for clang on Windows targeting gcc may have occurred trying to fix a more specific problem I reported in two other threads about linkage failure using dllexport and dllimport attributes on Windows, but going from a situation where a specific problem broke the linking to all situations are broken when attempting to link is not good.
I tried looking at the clang unit tests and how they can be run on Windows but found very little information about both. I wouldn't mind contributing some basic unit tests, even though I am not a clang developer, just to make sure that clang on Windows targeting gcc will work when compiling/linking dlls and using those dlls from another module, if I could understand what to do. That way such a snafu as this latest breakage would not occur so easily as whatever broke in the change should have been caught by some unit tests.