vsapsai added inline comments.
================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__config:993
+ !defined(_LIBCPP_BUILDING_LIBRARY) && \
+ !defined(__cpp_aligned_new)
+# define _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_ALIGNED_ALLOCATION
----------------
I think I'd rather keep `__cpp_aligned_new >= 201606` check. I don't know about
cases where the smaller value is possible, Clang always had 201606 as far as I
(and SVN) know. But it seems to be safer and more correct.
Don't have objective arguments for keeping the check, so if you think it's not
worth it, I trust your judgement.
================
Comment at: libcxx/include/new:111-116
#if !__has_builtin(__builtin_operator_new) || \
__has_builtin(__builtin_operator_new) < 201802L || \
defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_ALIGNED_ALLOCATION) || \
!defined(__cpp_aligned_new) || __cpp_aligned_new < 201606
#define _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_BUILTIN_ALIGNED_OPERATOR_NEW_DELETE
#endif
----------------
Maybe move this to `__config` too? This way we'll have
`__cpp_aligned_new`-related macros together.
================
Comment at: libcxx/test/libcxx/memory/aligned_allocation_macro.pass.cpp:11
+// UNSUPPORTED: c++98, c++03, c++11, c++14
+// XFAIL: with_system_cxx_lib=macosx10.12
+// XFAIL: with_system_cxx_lib=macosx10.11
----------------
Initially `with_system_cxx_lib` made me suspicious because macro
`_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_ALIGNED_ALLOCATION` doesn't need specific dylib. And `XFAIL:
availability=macosx10.12` seems to be working.
[Documentation](https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/docs/DesignDocs/AvailabilityMarkup.rst#testing)
describes which feature should be used in different cases but in this case I
cannot definitely say if test uses unavailable feature. I think it is
acceptable to stick with `with_system_cxx_lib` but I decided to brought to your
attention the alternative.
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50344
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
