ldionne added a comment. In D73245#1918148 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73245#1918148>, @EricWF wrote:
> I've already stated my disapproval of this patch. Libc++ has never and will > never provide nor value C++03 conformance. > Moving backwards to C++03 is inconsistent with the libraries general > direction. @EricWF makes a point here, we want to move away from C++03. > This patch disables tests, which could hide bugs, including serious ABI > differences between dialects. > > I would like to unbreak compilation on NetBSD. But all that's needed there is > to provide our own correct declaration of max_align_t. > I don't see why C++03 conformance is a necessary condition. Is there anything that can be done on the NetBSD side to solve this? Basically, just imagine that libc++ doesn't provide a C++03 mode at all -- what would you do then? I think that's the right mindset to solve this specific problem. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73245/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73245 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
