On 09/01/2014 22:48, Chandler Carruth wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected] <mailto:[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.
Hi Chandler, This is sounding positive. What's the schedule? Alp.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
-- http://www.nuanti.com the browser experts _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
