AaronBallman wrote: > For SystemZ the correct value is 256.
Thanks! Double-checking: for both constructive and destructive? > In general I agree it makes sense to look at the GCC implementation as a > source of reasonable values. Also, I think there probably should be no > generic default value at all - it there is no platform-specific value known, > it seems better to not define those values rather than define them to some > incorrect value ... On the one hand, I agree. But then libc++ will still have to pick default values to expose (these are `constexpr size_t` variables in libc++ rather than macros or `std::optional` values), so that just moves the problem elsewhere. Also, as best I can tell, that doesn't seem to be how GCC behaves (at least, from trying various GCC flavors on Compiler Explorer). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89446 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
