fedor.sergeev added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34158#836026, @jyknight wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34158#827178, @joerg wrote: > > > I had a long discussion with James about this on IRC without reaching a > > clear consensus. I consider forcing this behavior on all targets to be a > > major bug. It should be opt-in and opt-in only: > > > > (1) The header name is not mandated by any standard. It is not in any > > namespace generally accepted as implementation-owned. > > > This is a point. I didn't think it was a big deal, but if you want to argue a > different name should be used, that's a reasonable argument. > If we can get some agreement amongst other libc vendors to use some more > agreeable alternative name, and keep a fallback on linux-only for the > "stdc-predef.h" name, I'd consider that as a great success. Perhaps not a big deal yet, but as I have recently described stdc-predef.h idea to Oracle Solaris libc/headers/compilers folks, they generally welcomed the idea.. >> (3) ...Most other platforms have a single canonical libc, libm and >> libpthread implementation and can as such directly define all the relevant >> macros directly in the driver. > > I don't think this is accurate. There's many platforms out there, and for > almost none of them do we have exact knowledge of the features of the libc > encoded into the compiler. Solaris is a direct example of that... https://reviews.llvm.org/D34158 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
