On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Nico Weber <tha...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> >> Let me know which one of the 3 patches (with 1 being the one I >> >> originally sent) you like best. If it's 3, I'll add a few more tests >> >> for that. >> > >> > >> > I strongly prefer patch 3 over 2. (With just patch 2, I worry that some >> > libc >> > header would say "give me NULL and FOO", and just get NULL.) >> > >> > Instead of repeating an 'ifdef _STDDEF_H_imp' test, could you define all >> > the >> > __need_* macros in the _STDDEF_H_imp section? I'd find that slightly >> > easier >> > to reason about. >> >> Done. Also added a test, and fixed bugs found by the test. > > > Please add a comment to the block where you #define __need_* saying we > deliberately don't define __need_wint_t.
Done. Landed in r207606, thanks! > > Other than that, the patch LGTM (though we'll need more changes here to make > this work properly in the presence of modules). _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
