aaron.ballman added a comment. In D123345#3441262 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123345#3441262>, @joerg wrote:
> As is, I think this conflicts with `-ffreestanding` assumptions or at the > very least the spirit. Why? These functions are in `<utility>` which is not required in freestanding, but implementations are allowed to support more anyway (http://eel.is/c++draft/compliance#2). As the codegen doesn't emit a call to a library function but is purely using language facilities to reimplement the functionality, these don't seem to be in conflict with freestanding to me. If you could expound on what problems you see, that'd be helpful. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123345/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123345 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
