jhuber6 wrote: > > Overall I think the patch is fine pending some naming nits, my one concern > > is the `-U__GLIBCXX` stuff, because undefining internal vars seems really > > sketchy. Do we use `-nostdlib++` to make sure we don't link the C++ library? > > There is a > [test](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/flang/test/Runtime/no-cpp-dep.c) > that uses a C-compiler to link the runtime. This more portable than > `-nostdlib++`. > > [`_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS`](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/using_macros.html) > and > [`_LIBCPP_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS`](https://releases.llvm.org/17.0.1/projects/libcxx/docs/UsingLibcxx.html) > are used as described by their respective libraries and how it is done > before this PR. For libstdc++ defining
We should do `check_cxx_compiler_flag(-nostdlib++ FLANG_RT_HAS_NOSTDLIBPP)`, it's a lot more obvious when your program doesn't link than when a test fails (but the test is still good). > `_GLIBCXX_NO_ASSERTIONS=1` might be better than undefining something. For > libc++ `_LIBCPP_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS` has been > [deprecated](https://reviews.llvm.org/D154997) in favor of > [`_LIBCPP_HARDENING_MODE`](https://libcxx.llvm.org/Hardening.html). Changing > that would be a different concern than addressed by this PR. Yeah it's just copying what's already there so it's not a blocker. I agree that defining them explicitly is way better, because then if someone redefines them you'll get a warning. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110217 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
