weimingz added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/__config:300
@@ -299,3 +299,3 @@
-#if !(__has_feature(cxx_exceptions))
+#if !(__has_feature(cxx_exceptions)) && !defined(_LIBCPP_NO_EXCEPTIONS)
#define _LIBCPP_NO_EXCEPTIONS
----------------
Is this change OK?
================
Comment at: include/__mutex_base:43
@@ -42,3 +42,3 @@
_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
-#ifndef _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONSTEXPR
+#ifndef _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CXX14_CONSTEXPR
constexpr mutex() _NOEXCEPT : __m_(PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER) {}
----------------
EricWF wrote:
> This is not OK. It's critical that mutex have a constexpr constructor that it
> runs during the "Constant initialization" phase of static initialization.
> Heres an example of the difference this makes: https://godbolt.org/g/3cvlMJ
>
> Also the constructor is specified as being constexpr in C++11. We can't turn
> that off.
>
> If one particular pthread implementation is broken then we need a fix
> targeted to only that implementation. However this seems like a pthread bug
> and not a libc++ bug.
The macro has an "#else" part. I'm not familiar with this, but it seems the
constexpr an "optional feature".
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19344
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
