dexonsmith added a comment. Hmm... presumably, this test should pass:
$ ./bin/clang -nostdinc -isystem ./lib/clang/5.0.0/include -std=c++1z -fsyntax-only t.cpp t.cpp:3:1: error: static_assert failed static_assert(__is_same(intptr_t, __INTPTR_TYPE__)); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t.cpp:4:1: error: static_assert failed static_assert(__is_same(uintptr_t, __UINTPTR_TYPE__)); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 errors generated. $ cat t.cpp #include <stdint.h> static_assert(__is_same(intptr_t, __INTPTR_TYPE__)); static_assert(__is_same(uintptr_t, __UINTPTR_TYPE__)); Discovered that it fails (at least for `-triple x86_64-apple-macosx10.12.0`) while writing tests for an improved patch that covers SIZE_MAX, PTRDIFF_MIN/MAX, UINTPTR_MAX, and INTPTR_MAX, since I was trying: static_assert(__is_same(__typeof__(INTPTR_MIN), intptr_t)); static_assert(__is_same(__typeof__(INTPTR_MAX), intptr_t)); static_assert(__is_same(__typeof__(UINTPTR_MAX), uintptr_t)); static_assert(__is_same(__typeof__(PTRDIFF_MIN), ptrdiff_t)); static_assert(__is_same(__typeof__(PTRDIFF_MAX), ptrdiff_t)); static_assert(__is_same(__typeof__(SIZE_MAX), size_t)); and the first three assertions all failed. Is `__INTPTR_TYPE__` correct, or is `intptr_t`? Is it safe to fix the one that's wrong? https://reviews.llvm.org/D31856 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
