rsmith added a comment. In D91311#2403805 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311#2403805>, @ldionne wrote:
> We can stick with this design, but I'd like to understand why `#if > _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_PREFERRED_NAME` is necessary in `<iosfwd>`, and also the CI is > failing on MacOS. You mean the HWAddressSanitizer test failure? That appears to be a flake. Looking through recent failures I found more that look the same: https://reviews.llvm.org/B79364 https://reviews.llvm.org/B79363 https://reviews.llvm.org/B79358 ================ Comment at: libcxx/include/iosfwd:188 +#ifdef _LIBCPP_PREFERRED_NAME +template <class _CharT, class _Traits> ---------------- ldionne wrote: > rsmith wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > We always define `_LIBCPP_PREFERRED_NAME` so is this actually needed? > > Thanks, I was trying to avoid the redundant redeclarations when the > > attribute is unavailable, but clearly this doesn't do that! Fixed. > Is that really needed? What's the issue with having redundant declarations? It's not necessary. I'm happy to remove it and redeclare the templates unconditionally if you prefer. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
