@Marshall, @Richard Have we fixed the Solaris build yet?
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: > 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
