> E.g. presence of libc++ won't tell you if you can use sized deallocation as that's a ABI library issue.
The value of __libcpp_version could easily be updated by vendors to store the version of the system dylib, so I don't see why this wouldn't work. > So, why again should clang care about the libc++ version in advance? I'll leave that for Richard to answer. /Eric On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 12:54:28PM -0600, Eric Fiselier wrote: > > Richard requested this change. Take a look at > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D26044 for more rational. > > I don't see much rational and in fact, I disagree with some of the > mentioned items. E.g. presence of libc++ won't tell you if you can use > sized deallocation as that's a ABI library issue. So, why again should > clang care about the libc++ version in advance? > > Joerg >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
