> As I said, this is not a decision based on the libc++ version. It is at least partially based on the libc++ version. We obviously can't enable the feature if libc++ does not yet support them.
/Eric On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 01:49:53PM -0600, Eric Fiselier via cfe-commits > wrote: > > > E.g. presence of libc++ won't tell you if you can use sized > deallocation > > > as that's a ABI library issue. > > > > The value of __libcpp_version could easily be updated by vendors to > store > > the version of the system dylib, > > so I don't see why this wouldn't work. > > As I said, this is not a decision based on the libc++ version. When we > start adding random extra flags to the version file, it makes the point > I'm raising even bigger: we are duplicating data and clang should not be > magically changing its behavior like that anyway. > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
