EricWF added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11740#234575, @eugenis wrote:
> Yes, not being able to use headers in the libcxx source tree is quite > unpleasant. It can be fixed by providing a __config_version in libcxx/include > with the default version values. Or, in the approach of > http://reviews.llvm.org/D11963, do something smart in __config to default to > the right version numbers. I'm not sure what you mean by "smart" because IMO http://reviews.llvm.org/D11963 is pretty dumb, but I would like to see `__config` have a default value for `_LIBCPP_ABI_VERSION` wrapped in a `#ifndef _LIBCPP_ABI_VERSION`. > Why do we need _LIBCPP_ABI_UNSTABLE at all? How is it different from setting > LIBCPP_ABI_MAJOR_VERSION to the current default version + 1? Interesting question. I'm think trying to draw a distinction between the stable ABI versions and unversioned ABI changes that are currently being staged for the next release. My main concern is that using default version + 1 to stage future changes is that it could look like that is a "stable" ABI configuration. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11740 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
