EricWF added inline comments. ================ Comment at: include/atomic:859 @@ +858,3 @@ +template <> _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR bool __libcpp_always_lock_free<char32_t> = 2 == ATOMIC_CHAR32_T_LOCK_FREE; +template <> _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR bool __libcpp_always_lock_free<wchar_t> = 2 == ATOMIC_WCHAR_T_LOCK_FREE; +template <> _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR bool __libcpp_always_lock_free<short> = 2 == ATOMIC_SHORT_LOCK_FREE; ---------------- jfb wrote: > bcraig wrote: > > Do we need to support configurations were wchar_t is a typedef to an > > integer type, or is that an abomination too painful to deal with? > > > > I have no idea if the rest of libcxx attempts to deal with wchar_t typedefs. > Do you have examples of such platforms? The standard is pretty clear that > they're wrong: > > > [basic.fundamental] > > > > Type `wchar_t` is a distinct type whose values can represent distinct codes > > for all members of the largest extended character set specified among the > > supported locales. Type `wchar_t` shall have the same size, signedness, and > > alignment requirements as one of the other integral types, called its > > *underlying type*. > > I'll defer to @mclow.lists on whether we can about such implementations or > not. I don't think we have to deal with such typedefs for `wchar_t` but we do have to deal with non-sense typedefs (that we unfortunately supply) for `char16_t` and `char32_t` in C++03 mode with GCC.
And our <atomic> implementation needs to compile in C++03 (Sorry, I did that). ================ Comment at: include/atomic:898 @@ -834,1 +897,3 @@ +#if defined(__cpp_lib_atomic_is_always_lock_free) +# if defined(_LIBCPP_LOCK_FREE_IS_SIZE_BASED) ---------------- @mclow.lists I'm fine exposing this typedef retroactively in C++11 and earlier. Do you have any objections to that? http://reviews.llvm.org/D17951 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
