rmaprath added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#436849, @jroelofs wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#431997, @rmaprath wrote: > > > Addressing review comments from @jroelofs: > > > > - Moved the assertion in `libunwind.cpp` back to `UnwindCursor.cpp` where > > it really belogs. > > > > @jroelofs: I just realized that, with this new native-only build of > > `libunwind`, users of `libunwind.h` would have to explicitly `#define` the > > flag `_LIBUNWIND_IS_NATIVE_ONLY` in order to get the header in-sync with > > the library. I can't see an immediate problem if they don't define that > > flag though, it's just that they'll end up passing larger buffers than the > > library needs. Do you see a problem here? > > > I'm not convinced it's a problem, (though possibly performance left on the > table)... > > > 'libc++' uses a `__config_site` mechanism to wire the cmake build options > > into the `__config` header. We can implement a similar mechanism in > > `libunwind`, not sure if that's necessary here. > > > I think that's the right way to go. > > Jon > > > WDYT? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > / Asiri > Apologies, it looks like we don't have any targets for installing `libunwind.h` header (or any other headers from `libunwind` project for that matter). I think this means we use `libunwind.h` only for building libunwind+libcxxabi libraries, and there's no need to explicitly adjust `libunwind.h` header as it is not used from outside as it is. Hope this makes sense. OK to commit? Sorry for the diversion. / Asiri http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
