================ @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +// There are at least 2 valid C null-pointer constants as defined +// by the C language standard. +// Test that the macro NULL is defined consistently for all platforms by +// those headers that the C standard mandates a macro definition for NULL. + +// RUN: %clang %s -Dheader="<locale.h>" -E | tail -1 | FileCheck %s +// RUN: %clang %s -Dheader="<stdio.h>" -E | tail -1 | FileCheck %s +// RUN: %clang %s -Dheader="<stdlib.h>" -E | tail -1 | FileCheck %s +// RUN: %clang %s -Dheader="<string.h>" -E | tail -1 | FileCheck %s +// RUN: %clang %s -Dheader="<time.h>" -E | tail -1 | FileCheck %s +// RUN: %clang %s -Dheader="<wchar.h>" -E | tail -1 | FileCheck %s ---------------- jamieschmeiser wrote:
How can that happen? According to https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CrossCompilation.html: `If you don’t specify the target, CPU names won’t match (since Clang assumes the host triple), and the compilation will go ahead, creating code for the host platform`. There is no target specified so it will not be cross-compiling. Is there something that you would suggest to alleviate your concerns? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/149176 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
