aaron.ballman added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/FrontendAction.cpp:845-855
+  if (Input.isFile() && Input.getFile() == "-") {
+    Preprocessor &PP = CI.getPreprocessor();
+    std::string PredefineBuffer;
+    PredefineBuffer.reserve(4080);
+    llvm::raw_string_ostream Predefines(PredefineBuffer);
+    Predefines << PP.getPredefines();
+    MacroBuilder Builder(Predefines);
----------------
zahiraam wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > zahiraam wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > I'm confused as to why we want to predefine this macro *only* when the 
> > > > input source is stdin? So I'm not certain I understand why this change 
> > > > is desired.
> > > > 
> > > > e.g., https://godbolt.org/z/E8Y67381r (note how there's no 
> > > > `__FLT_EVAL_METHOD__` defined there)
> > > I was offering a solution  to the issue raised by @glandium in 
> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D109239. I thought that the issue was only when 
> > > the source is stdin, but obviously not.  The default setting should 
> > > happen under no condition. 
> > There have been a lot of reviews over this stuff, so I may be remembering 
> > incorrectly... but I thought it was a conscious decision to *not* predefine 
> > `__FLT_EVAL_METHOD__` because that value changes depending on pragmas in 
> > the TU. I thought the way that macro worked was that we registered it as a 
> > macro and we figure out its value at expansion time.
> > 
> > (The original report confused me into thinking that `__FLT_EVAL_METHOD__` 
> > was behaving as though it was never defined, so expansion would never 
> > result in a correct value except when the eval method is `0`.)
> Yes, you are remembering correctly. I looked at older comments and it's 
> something that was intended. We didn't want to pre-define it, until it is set 
> at expansion.
Thank you for double-checking! I would recommend that you abandon this change, 
and instead make an NFC change to 
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#a-note-about-flt-eval-method to 
make it clear that this macro does not appear when dumping preprocessor macro 
definitions but is instead resolved when expanding it as a macro definition.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D124004/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D124004

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to