smeenai added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/__threading_support:30 +#define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN +#include <Windows.h> +#include <process.h> ---------------- EricWF wrote: > > Can we do as Reid suggests and not expose users to windows.h? > > I was about to ask the same question. These includes are dragging in the > `__deallocate` macro and I would love to avoid that. I feel like we would end up with a //lot// of duplication if we went down this route, since this is using a fair amount of Windows APIs. @rnk suggested having a test for prototype mismatches, but even with those checks there could be a high maintenance burden to the duplication. Was the main objection to `WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN` that it would be problematic for modules? If we're including `windows.h`, it seems strictly preferable to include it with `WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN` than without, since we'll pull in a lot less that way. Including `windows.h` without `WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN` can also interact with other headers badly sometimes, e.g. [`winsock2.h`](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms737629%28v=vs.85%29.aspx). https://reviews.llvm.org/D28220 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
