ldionne added a comment. In D91311#2404098 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311#2404098>, @rsmith wrote:
> In D91311#2403805 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311#2403805>, @ldionne wrote: > >> We can stick with this design, but I'd like to understand why `#if >> _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_PREFERRED_NAME` is necessary in `<iosfwd>`, and also the CI >> is failing on MacOS. > > You mean the HWAddressSanitizer test failure? That appears to be a flake. > Looking through recent failures I found more that look the same: > https://reviews.llvm.org/B79364 https://reviews.llvm.org/B79363 > https://reviews.llvm.org/B79358 I was talking about his issue in the libc++ CI. See https://buildkite.com/llvm-project/libcxx-ci/builds/422#8e9a6d80-32ff-429e-a3de-e7ecc111c2fb (gotta look at the raw log). /tmp/buildkite-agent/builds/libcxx-mbp-local-1/llvm-project/libcxx-ci/libcxx/include/iosfwd:190:34: error: redefinition of 'ios' as different kind of symbol class _LIBCPP_PREFERRED_NAME(ios) _LIBCPP_PREFERRED_NAME(wios) basic_ios; ^ ================ Comment at: libcxx/include/iosfwd:188 +#ifdef _LIBCPP_PREFERRED_NAME +template <class _CharT, class _Traits> ---------------- rsmith wrote: > ldionne wrote: > > rsmith wrote: > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > We always define `_LIBCPP_PREFERRED_NAME` so is this actually needed? > > > Thanks, I was trying to avoid the redundant redeclarations when the > > > attribute is unavailable, but clearly this doesn't do that! Fixed. > > Is that really needed? What's the issue with having redundant declarations? > It's not necessary. I'm happy to remove it and redeclare the templates > unconditionally if you prefer. Yes, I'd prefer that, and removing `_LIBCPP_HAS_PREFERRED_NAME`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
