On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 7, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Author: alexfh >> > Date: Fri Sep 7 17:44:34 2012 >> > New Revision: 163429 >> > >> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=163429&view=rev >> > Log: >> > Fixed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13777 >> > >> > Modified: >> > cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp >> > >> > Modified: cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp >> > URL: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp?rev=163429&r1=163428&r2=163429&view=diff >> > >> ============================================================================== >> > --- cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp (original) >> > +++ cfe/trunk/tools/clang-check/ClangCheck.cpp Fri Sep 7 17:44:34 2012 >> > @@ -58,7 +58,9 @@ >> > "ast-dump-filter", >> > cl::desc(Options->getOptionHelpText(options::OPT_ast_dump_filter))); >> > >> > -namespace { >> > +// Anonymous namespace here causes problems with gcc <= 4.4 on MacOS: >> > +// http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13777 >> > +// namespace { >> >> How about just putting it in the clang namespace? At the very least, >> please delete the commented-out lines. >> > > Agreed on both fronts. Also, bugs are usually cited just as "PR13777", and > almost never cited in the source code, but rather in the test case itself. > > That said, is this really the necessary solution? There are a lot of > template arguments defined in an anonymous namespace within the codebase > already. How do they work without problems? > You suggest that I start figuring out "how do they work without problems"? Do you consider it useful to spend more time dealing with a stupid bug in 4+ year-old version of GCC? I feel like this is an ODR violation waiting to happen unless we put it in > an anonymous namespace the way it should be... > Or should I revert it and leave LLVM broken in MacPorts for Snow Leopard or whatever was broken before this patch? Or I can try to make the name of this class as unique as possible while retaining it readable and meaningful (say, clang::clang_check::ClangCheckSpecificActionFactory), and return to this problem once gcc 4.2 (or even 4.4) is completely and irreversibly dead (say, in 15 years). -Chandler > -- Regards, Alex
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
