On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 12:27:32 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Good point. I don't really see a reason to define _GCC_MAX_ALIGN_T as
> libstdc++ doesn't try to define its own max_align_t like libc++ does.
> We do need to make sure that we define max_align_t for C++11 and up
> though.
Fair enough. OK
> From: "Todd C. Miller"
> Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 15:50:02 -0700
>
> I think you need to also define __CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T_DEFINED and
> perhaps _GCC_MAX_ALIGN_T to avoid libcxx from redefining max_align_t
> as a different type. E.g. in src/lib/libcxx/include/stddef.h
>
> // Re-use the compiler's
I think you need to also define __CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T_DEFINED and
perhaps _GCC_MAX_ALIGN_T to avoid libcxx from redefining max_align_t
as a different type. E.g. in src/lib/libcxx/include/stddef.h
// Re-use the compiler's max_align_t where possible.
#if !defined(__CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T_DEFINED) && !def
Diff below adds C11 support to the feature test macros in
and uses those to conditionally define the max_align_t
type in . All systems/compilers seem to use the same
construct. See
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL201729
for a bit more background.
This will make it possible to remove clang's priv
