hfinkel accepted this revision. hfinkel added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34578#801357, @dexonsmith wrote: > Ping! Hal, you committed r283051. Do you have a problem with this? It looks like you're just renaming `__libcpp_isnan` and friends to __libcpp_isnan_or_builtin` and similar. LGTM > (Incidentally, I noticed that r283051 was optimizing the implementation of > <complex>. I wonder why we have so much code in that header, instead of > calling out to libc's already-optimized <complex.h> implementation?) This is definitely worth looking at (especially given that we don't support complex of user-defined types with those functions). Would making complex<double> use _Complex double, and so on, be an API break? Would that matter? https://reviews.llvm.org/D34578 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
