On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> > wrote: > >> <stddef.h>. This one is tricky: >> >> 1) There's an (undocumented) interface between the C standard library and >> this header, where the macros __need_ptrdiff_t, __need_size_t, >> __need_wchar_t, __need_NULL, __need_wint_t request just a piece of this >> header rather than the whole thing. If we see any of those, just go >> straight to the underlying header. >> > > Ok, but in that case we don't get nullptr. I suspect that's OK. > > >> 2) We probably don't want <stddef.h> to include <cstddef> (for >> consistency with other headers) >> > > No, we do not! :-) > > >> , but <stddef.h> must provide a ::nullptr_t (which we don't want >> <cstddef> to provide). So neither header includes the other. Instead, both >> include <__nullptr> for std::nullptr_t, and we duplicate the definition of >> max_align_t between them, in the case where the compiler's <stddef.h> >> doesn't provide it. >> >> If you prefer, I could make <stddef.h> include <cstddef> to avoid the >> duplication of the max_align_t logic. >> > > No; this is a minor annoyance, and layer jumping (<stdXXX.h> including > <cstdXXX>) is a major annoyance - and I'm pretty sure that that would come > back to bite us in the future. > > Looks ok to me. > Thanks, everything up to and including patch 09 is now committed.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
