Regarding Patch #15. 1. Tests under 'test/std' shouldn't directly include <__config> or depend on any libc++ implementation details. We are trying to make the test suite generic so refrain from referencing libc++ symbols. 2. "static_assert" is C++11 only but this test should work in C++03. Can you use "#if TEST_STD_VER >= 11" from "test_macros.h" to use static assert in C++11 and just "assert" in C++03 (or something similar)? 3. Could you throw the standarese that requires this behavior at the top of the test?
LGTM after you address those points. /Eric On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: > Patch #12 LGTM. Thanks for doing tho cwchar approach in this patch. > One small nit. I would prefer a "negative" feature macro for > "_LIBCPP_STRING_H_HAS_CONST_OVERLOADS" because correct defaults > shouldn't need a macro definition to be selected. (ie > _LIBCPP_STRING_H_HAS_NO_CONST_OVERLOAD.) > > /Eric > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: >> As of r249890, all committed other than patches 12 (string.h) and 15 (more >> tests). >> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Patch #12 needs revision. A bunch of function definitions were moved >>>>> out of the std namespace and into the global. >>>>> That change is incorrect. >>>> >>>> >>>> Slightly updated version attached. I should probably explain what's going >>>> on here in more detail: >>>> >>>> Per [c.strings]p4-p13, we're supposed to replace C functions of the form >>>> >>>> char *foo(const char*); >>>> >>>> with a pair of const-correct overloads of the form >>>> >>>> char *foo(char *); >>>> const char *foo(const char*); >>>> >>>> Now, most C standard libraries will do this for us when included in C++ >>>> mode (because it's not possible for the C++ library to fix this up after >>>> the >>>> fact). For the cases where we *don't* believe we have such a considerate C >>>> library, we add one declaration to C's overload, to get: >>>> >>>> char *foo(char*); >>>> char *foo(const char*) >>>> >>>> ... which doesn't really help much, but is the closest we can get to the >>>> right set of declarations. The declarations we add just dispatch to the C >>>> declarations. >>>> >>>> These new declarations *should* be in the global namespace when including >>>> <string.h>, and it makes sense for us to put them in the global namespace >>>> when including <cstring> (otherwise, that header leaves us with a broken >>>> overload set in the global namespace, containing just one of the two >>>> expected functions). >>>> >>>> Anyway, most of the above is a description of what we did before. What's >>>> new here is that we attempt to fix the overload set for both <string.h> and >>>> for <cstring>, not just for the latter. At the end of all these changes, >>>> you'll see that all that the <cfoo> headers do is to include the <foo.h> >>>> header and use using-declarations to pull the names into namespace std; >>>> this >>>> is no exception to that pattern. >>> >>> >>> Per Eric and my discussion on IRC, the pattern used by <cwchar> seems >>> better here: >>> >>> If libc has left us with a bad overload set, don't try to fix the names in >>> ::, just provide a complete set of overloads in namespace std. >>> >>> A patch for that approach is attached. >>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: >>>>> > Patch #11 LGTM. Any reason you removed the "#pragma diagnostic ignored >>>>> > "-Wnonnull"" in test/std/depr/depr.c.headers/stdlib_h.pass.cpp? >>>>> > I would like to leave it in so this test doesn't fail with older clang >>>>> > versions. >>>>> > >>>>> > /Eric >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: >>>>> >> Patch #10 LGTM. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Marshall Clow >>>>> >>> <mclow.li...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Richard Smith >>>>> >>>> <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <stddef.h>. This one is tricky: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1) There's an (undocumented) interface between the C standard >>>>> >>>>> library and >>>>> >>>>> this header, where the macros __need_ptrdiff_t, __need_size_t, >>>>> >>>>> __need_wchar_t, __need_NULL, __need_wint_t request just a piece of >>>>> >>>>> this >>>>> >>>>> header rather than the whole thing. If we see any of those, just >>>>> >>>>> go straight >>>>> >>>>> to the underlying header. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Ok, but in that case we don't get nullptr. I suspect that's OK. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) We probably don't want <stddef.h> to include <cstddef> (for >>>>> >>>>> consistency with other headers) >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> No, we do not! :-) >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> , but <stddef.h> must provide a ::nullptr_t (which we don't want >>>>> >>>>> <cstddef> to provide). So neither header includes the other. >>>>> >>>>> Instead, both >>>>> >>>>> include <__nullptr> for std::nullptr_t, and we duplicate the >>>>> >>>>> definition of >>>>> >>>>> max_align_t between them, in the case where the compiler's >>>>> >>>>> <stddef.h> >>>>> >>>>> doesn't provide it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you prefer, I could make <stddef.h> include <cstddef> to avoid >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> duplication of the max_align_t logic. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> No; this is a minor annoyance, and layer jumping (<stdXXX.h> >>>>> >>>> including >>>>> >>>> <cstdXXX>) is a major annoyance - and I'm pretty sure that that >>>>> >>>> would come >>>>> >>>> back to bite us in the future. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Looks ok to me. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thanks, everything up to and including patch 09 is now committed. >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
