Patch #12 needs revision. A bunch of function definitions were moved out of the std namespace and into the global. That change is incorrect.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: > Patch #11 LGTM. Any reason you removed the "#pragma diagnostic ignored > "-Wnonnull"" in test/std/depr/depr.c.headers/stdlib_h.pass.cpp? > I would like to leave it in so this test doesn't fail with older clang > versions. > > /Eric > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: >> 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
