rmaprath abandoned this revision.
rmaprath added a comment.
Abandoning: we've decided to relax our C library to expose C99 functionality in
C++98/03 modes. This is more inline with upstream intentions and allows us to
get rid of some fiddly downstream libc++ patches as well.
Thanks Marshall and
EricWF resigned from this revision.
EricWF removed a reviewer: EricWF.
EricWF added a comment.
After talking with @rmaprath we have agreed to go in a different direction.
Resigning as reviewer to keep my queue clean.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23926
___
Hi @EricWD, @mclow.lists,
Thanks for the comments.
I will discuss this downstream a bit and get back. What I don't want to do
is deviate too much from upstream in terms of expectations. We may have to
shed some of our old expectations with libc++, I wanted to first clarify
upstream position on th
EricWF added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23926#531226, @rmaprath wrote:
> Simplified the patch a little bit more.
>
> Now, library vendors should be able to define
> `_LIBCPP_STRICT_C99_COMPATIBILITY` and `libc++` will not use/test C99 math
> functions in `C++03/98` modes. Currently
@mclow.lists: Our C library is aware of the fact that it may be used from a
C++ context, yes.
So you think it's OK for libc++ to expect C99 operations at all language
standards?
Cheers,
/ Asiri
On 4 Sep 2016 01:16, "Marshall Clow via cfe-commits" <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> mclow.lis
mclow.lists added a comment.
> We have quite a strict C library which is picky about what it exposes under
> different standards. For example, it won't expose C99 math ops if it is being
> used under `__cplusplus < 201103L` ...
That sounds .. odd to me, having the behavior of the C library dep
@Eric: Ping?
On 1 Sep 2016 11:33, "Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits" <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 69962.
> rmaprath added a comment.
>
> Simplified the patch a little bit more.
>
> Now, library vendors should be able to define
> `_LIBCPP_STRICT_C99
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 69962.
rmaprath added a comment.
Simplified the patch a little bit more.
Now, library vendors should be able to define
`_LIBCPP_STRICT_C99_COMPATIBILITY` and `libc++` will not use/test C99 math
functions in `C++03/98` modes. Currently it's only the math fu
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 69710.
rmaprath added a comment.
Re-spinning a new patch to test the waters.
@EricWF: Does this approach look OK?
/ Asiri
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23926
Files:
include/__config
include/math.h
test/std/depr/depr.c.headers/math_h.pass.cpp
test/std
rmaprath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23926#527080, @EricWF wrote:
> We already provide many C++11 extensions in C++03 mode, why should this be an
> exception?
This is kind of what I wanted to find out. Do we document what those extensions
are?
We have quite a strict C libra
EricWF added a comment.
We already provide many C++11 extensions in C++03 mode, why should this be an
exception?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23926
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
`C99` math ops should not be available when compiling in `-std=c++03` mode.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23926
Files:
include/math.h
test/std/depr/depr.c.headers/math_h.pass.
12 matches
Mail list logo