chandlerc added a comment.
(To be clear, this continues to not be related to this patch, but happy to
discuss...)
Comment at: include/stddef.h:55
// Re-use the compiler's max_align_t where possible.
#if !defined(__CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T_DEFINED) && !defined(_GCC_MAX_ALIGN_T) &
ldionne added inline comments.
Comment at: include/stddef.h:55
// Re-use the compiler's max_align_t where possible.
#if !defined(__CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T_DEFINED) && !defined(_GCC_MAX_ALIGN_T) && \
chandlerc wrote:
> Unrelated to your patch, but this comment is n
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rCXX340224: Teach libc++ to use native NetBSD's
max_align_t (authored by kamil, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: ldionne.
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
Files:
inclu
krytarowski added a comment.
@chandlerc thank you for your note. I've originally treated this change as an
obvious code change, just the reviewers regardless of reviewing an analogous
change for MUSL, had no interest in NetBSD.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
chandlerc added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814#1206372, @krytarowski wrote:
> If there are no more comments, I will land this by the end of this week.
Just for the record, this is not OK and not how LLVM's code review works.
You can and must wait for review. I think Joerg alread
krytarowski added a comment.
If there are no more comments, I will land this by the end of this week.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailma
chandlerc resigned from this revision.
chandlerc added a comment.
I don't have any problem with this patch's code in theory but:
1. The question of whether this macro approach is better or worse than
FreeBSD's or MUSL's seems a question for libc++ maintainers, not me.
2. The question of whether
krytarowski added a comment.
ping^3
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
krytarowski added a comment.
It's similar to MUSL, __DEFINED_max_align_t is musl specific and they don't
care about libc++ or not on top of it.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.ll
krytarowski added a comment.
I saw this and I think that it shall be handled in libc++. NetBSD doesn't care
if c++ runtime library is libstdc++, libc++, none or a different one.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
___
cfe-commits
bsdjhb added a comment.
FWIW, for FreeBSD I defined __CLANG_MAX_ALIGN_T and _GCC_MAX_ALIGN_T in
FreeBSD's when defining the typedef to handle this.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lis
krytarowski added a comment.
ping^2
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
krytarowski added a comment.
ping
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47814
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
krytarowski created this revision.
krytarowski added reviewers: chandlerc, dlj, EricWF, joerg.
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
The NetBSD headers ship with max_align_t, that is not
compatible with the fallback version in libc++.
There is no defined a compiler specific symbol in the heade
14 matches
Mail list logo