eugenis added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11740#234610, @EricWF wrote:
> 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`. Yes, that. > > > > 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. OK. Then _LIBCPP_ABI_UNSTABLE won't bump the ABI version (as seen in library soname and header path)? http://reviews.llvm.org/D11740 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
