Patch #10 LGTM.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > 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
