ian-twilightcoder wrote: > FWIW, I did verify that it's very unlikely the changes in this PR will break > existing code: > https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+__need_unreachable+-file:.*clang.*&patternType=keyword&sm=0, > so that's a good thing. > > > I do wonder if we could have the broader builtin headers discussion > > independent of this patch? Is everyone happy with this patch? We can keep > > talking about the builtin headers in here independent of merging right? > > I guess I don't see these as independent topics; if we decide that C++ mode > should not have observable differences in C headers, then the changes here > are incorrect. I think we should have this discussion in a broader context > (like Discourse) before moving forward with these changes. > > Also, I'd still like an explanation for [this > question](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86748#issuecomment-2023145043): > > > I don't understand why this is making into C++ builds at all: > > because it may turn out we don't need these changes in the first place > because the issue is elsewhere.
Right now I just noticed that in a C++ test I was writing that stddef.h alone doesn't give me unreachable, but __needs_unreachable does. And that's probably wrong because unreachable belongs to <utility> in C++ and _not_ stddef.h. The C++ standard has some frustrating divergence with the C standard as to what the c stdlib headers declare... https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86748 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
