jrtc27 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/stdckdint.h:12 +#define __STDCKDINT_H + +/* C23 7.20.1 Defines several macros for performing checked integer arithmetic*/ ---------------- pirama wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > Should a hosted build attempt to do an include_next into the system library > > and then fall back to the compiler builtins, or should we treat this like > > stdbool.h where the compiler always wins? CC @jyknight @jrtc27 @efriedma > > > > My intuition is that we want to include_next in case the system has better > > facilities than the compiler does. > The `include_next` question is still open. Any preference here? > > IMO, since the standard explicitly delegates to the compiler builtin when > available, we may not need to `include_next` - unless there are other > conventions around this. FreeBSD has just added an implementation because Clang doesn’t have one. GCC will include_next if _LIBC_STDCKDINT_H isn’t defined and there is a header to include. I don’t really know why that exists to be honest, I don’t see a use for it and view this like foointrin.h headers. But probably we should be compatible with that. I don’t see a use case for it in FreeBSD though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157331/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157331 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
