hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.
================ Comment at: libcxx/include/cstdalign:24 +#include <__config> +#include <stdalign.h> + ---------------- sbc100 wrote: > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > > This seems to be assuming that the underlying C library's `stdalign.h` is > > C++ friendly. A C11 `stdalign.h` //does// define `alignof` and `alignas` as > > macros. > Should I just remove this `#include` then? The idea would be to //add// a `stdalign.h` alongside this header that doesn't `#include_next` the underlying C library's `stdalign.h`. ================ Comment at: libcxx/test/std/language.support/cstdalign/cstdalign.pass.cpp:27 +#ifndef __alignof_is_defined +#error __alignof_is_defined not defined +#endif ---------------- sbc100 wrote: > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > > sbc100 wrote: > > > ldionne wrote: > > > > I'm not seeing `__alignof_is_defined` anywhere in the spec? > > > Removed > > Seems like a defect in the old standard. The prose doesn't match the > > synopsis. `__alignof_is_defined` is a macro in C11's `stdalign.h` (and so > > is `alignof`). That the C++ committee did not intend for an `alignof` macro > > can probably be assumed. I suspect the lack of an `__alignof_is_defined` > > macro was also unintended. > So should I add back the check for `__alignof_is_defined`? I think so (in addition to also checking that `alignof` is not defined as a macro). I think the patch needs to be confirmed again either way by the libc++ approvers though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D46443/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D46443 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
