abhina.sreeskantharajan marked 5 inline comments as done.
abhina.sreeskantharajan added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/OSTargets.h:743
+ Builder.defineMacro("__BFP__");
+ // FIXME: __BOOL__ should be defined under strict -std=c89.
+ Builder.defineMacro("__BOOL__");
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> MaskRay wrote:
> > What is strict -std=c89? `!Opts.C99` ?
> The comment has a typo. The macro should //not// be defined with strict C89
> modes.
>
> > What is strict -std=c89? `!Opts.C99` ?
>
> In the context of this macro, "strict C89" means `!Opts.C99` and the severity
> of `ext_c99_feature` diagnostics is at least an error. This occurs, for
> example, with `-std=gnu89 -Werror=c99-extensions`.
>
Thanks, I've fixed the comment.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/OSTargets.h:757
+ if (Opts.C99)
+ Builder.defineMacro("_ISOC99_SOURCE");
+
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> This is strange. On other systems the user requests it.
Thanks, I've removed this macro to maintain consistency with other platforms.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/OSTargets.h:773
+ // type is not declared as a typedef in system headers.
+ Builder.defineMacro("__wchar_t");
+ }
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> Does it need a value?
No, this macro doesn't require a number. This macro is defined when the wchar_t
type is available, so that the system headers do not declare it.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85324/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85324
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
