MaskRay added a comment. In D64482#1578376 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64482#1578376>, @ro wrote:
> In D64482#1578245 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64482#1578245>, @MaskRay wrote: > > > > There's one caveat: gcc defines _LARGEFILE_SOURCE and _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE > > > for C++ only, while clang has long been doing it for all languages > > > > Can you explain more about the hack > > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=0f97ccfdccc033f543ccbcb220697e62e84bf01f > > > No hack at all ;-) See the patch submission > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg01320.html for details. Apart > from that, > this is the direction libstdc++/g++ mean to take in general. Honestly I find such enforced C/C++ difference very unfortunate... e.g. if (Opts.CPlusPlus) Builder.defineMacro("_GNU_SOURCE"); Solaris seems the only exception that defines these Large File Support extension macros on the compiler driver side. Isn't it possible to do it in a common system header file? That rationale will be better than this paragraph in the description: > make check-all currently fails on x86_64-pc-solaris2.11 when building with > GCC 9: With the current description, a casual reader (like I) would just think this patch is probably not doing things at the correct layer. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64482/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64482 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
