On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> If we're going to back out the revert, can we put the code into an >> #ifdef so that the reserved namespace identifier is protected when >> compiling with something that doesn't understand lsan? Then we can >> argue over the "right" way with some protection. > > > I'm not opposed to that, if we have a suitable predefine. But we already > have *loads* of code in Clang that defines identifiers in the reserved > namespace (try grepping for '[A-Za-z]__[A-Za-z]' in include/ to find a > bunch of them), and none of our supported C++ implementations (for clang > 3.5) have a problem with this, so I don't see that there's a lot of value > in doing so. > Further, I don't think we should slow down the efforts to get LSan bootstrapping effectively while we figure out the correct predefine -- we can add one later as the discussion converges. That had been my plan from the beginning.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
