----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Smith" <[email protected]> > To: "Ed Schouten" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]>, "Tijl Coosemans" <[email protected]>, > "cfe commits" <[email protected]>, > "David Chisnall" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:34:34 PM > Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] C11 <stdatomic.h> > > > Adding a __has_include_next check sounds good to me. We already do > this for several other headers. > > Hal: if you're interested in driving this (rebasing the patch and > adding the include_next machinery), please go ahead. >
r218957, thanks again! -Hal > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Ed Schouten < [email protected] > wrote: > > > On 22 September 2014 16:38, Hal Finkel < [email protected] > wrote: > > Understood. I suggested exactly this ( > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140915/115196.html > > ). Does that work for you? > > Yes. That's perfect. Thanks! > > On a more general note, I'd love to see if Clang would eventually > focus on providing built-ins that would allow OS authors to come up > with the standard headers easily, instead of providing the headers > themselves. > > For example, it would be pretty nice if we could write down things > like: > > typedef __builtin_uint32_t uint32_t; > > #define LONG_MAX __builtin_max(long) > > etc. > > But don't let me hijack this thread. :-) > > -- > Ed Schouten < [email protected] > > > -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
