EricWF added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49774#1175679, @BillyONeal wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49774#1175650, @ldionne wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49774#1175543, @BillyONeal wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49774#1175131, @mclow.lists wrote: > > > > > > > Another problem (that Eric and I discussed last night) is that > > > > filesystem is part of C++17, and `file_clock` is C++20. So we need a > > > > solution for C++17 as well. > > > > > > > > > It seems like we need to fix C++20 to allow that to be a typedef to a > > > type in std::filesystem or that will be ABI breaking for MSVC++. IMO we > > > should fix the spec to allow that rather than make libc++ jump through > > > insane hoops. > > > > > > We could also just provide `file_clock` "early" in C++17. Strictly speaking > > that may make our implementation non-conforming, but IDK how big of a deal > > this would be? > > > Sure, libc++ could do that. But because msvc++ and libstdc++ have already > shipped this thing I think the spec will have to change. > > No real user cares about the associated namespaces of a clock anyway. Agreed. I don't think this spec will land as-is. ================ Comment at: test/std/experimental/filesystem/fs.op.funcs/fs.op.last_write_time/last_write_time.pass.cpp:589 + std::cerr << new_ts.tv_sec << "\n"; + std::cerr << new_ts.tv_nsec << "\n"; + TEST_CHECK(ts[1].tv_sec == new_ts.tv_sec); ---------------- TODO: remove this. Repository: rCXX libc++ https://reviews.llvm.org/D49774 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
