> On 2016-Jan-21, at 17:59, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote:
>
> EricWF added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12354#331776, @dexonsmith wrote:
>
>> This patch looks correct to me. Is there any reason it wasn't committed?
>
>
> I was concerned about using a function-local static in the library headers, I
> don't think libc++ does that anywhere else and I wanted to make sure it was
> safe to do.
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D12354
Ah, in the testing hook. I feel like it's better than the current
situation, anyway. Unless we have ABI guarantees for _LIBCPP_DEBUG
since this could lock us in somehow. (Do we? Should we?)
Thinking through a couple of other options:
2. The test could provide its own version of _LIBCPP_ASSERT. It's
not obvious how to hook into the assertions in src/debug.cpp
though.
3. We could move __debug_assert() and __debug_assertion_handler()
to the dylib (and use a static global variable there).
Maybe (3) is the best. Is it important for these functions to be
inline, given that they're in the slow path anyway?
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
