EricWF added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11963#227951, @jroelofs wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11963#227441, @EricWF wrote: > > > @jroelofs What do you think of an approach like this? > > > Having two copies of the __config_site file makes me uncomfortable, but I > could put up with that given that they're effectively the same for 99% of > people who will want to build this library. > > That being said, @mclow.lists raised a few concerns with the overall > strategy... I don't want to keep pushing on this patch if his plan is to > pocket-veto it. My hackey suggestion makes me uncomfortable too. However, as unfortunate as it is, we **need** a patch like this (Despite how bad I don't want it). One reason is that libc++ *claims* to support using libsupc++ to provide `typeinfo` definition. The problem is that libc++ declares `typeinfo` with a different vtable layout. In order to match libsupc++ we need something like a `__config_site` header. I think we either need to nuke libsupc++ support or adopt a patch like this. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11963 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
