ldionne added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50205#1186419, @ahatanak wrote:
> I just wanted to make sure that this doesn't have the same problem as > https://reviews.llvm.org/D34556. Is that correct? > > The patch was reverted in r306859. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34574#791158 > explains why the approach taken in the patch was wrong. I was neither aware of https://reviews.llvm.org/D34574 nor https://reviews.llvm.org/D34556, but that changes the picture quite a bit. So, IIUC, we want to predicate our use of the aligned allocation functions on whether `__cpp_aligned_new` is defined, which will be defined correctly because of https://reviews.llvm.org/D45015. Since we're already predicated on that, there's really not much to do in libc++. I think it's still a good idea to have the availability markup, though. Repository: rCXX libc++ https://reviews.llvm.org/D50205 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
