jroelofs added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#437191, @rmaprath wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#436849, @jroelofs wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#431997, @rmaprath wrote: > > > > > Addressing review comments from @jroelofs: > > > > > > - Moved the assertion in `libunwind.cpp` back to `UnwindCursor.cpp` where > > > it really belogs. > > > > > > @jroelofs: I just realized that, with this new native-only build of > > > `libunwind`, users of `libunwind.h` would have to explicitly `#define` > > > the flag `_LIBUNWIND_IS_NATIVE_ONLY` in order to get the header in-sync > > > with the library. I can't see an immediate problem if they don't define > > > that flag though, it's just that they'll end up passing larger buffers > > > than the library needs. Do you see a problem here? > > > > > > I'm not convinced it's a problem, (though possibly performance left on the > > table)... > > > > > 'libc++' uses a `__config_site` mechanism to wire the cmake build options > > > into the `__config` header. We can implement a similar mechanism in > > > `libunwind`, not sure if that's necessary here. > > > > > > I think that's the right way to go. > > > > Jon > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > / Asiri > > > > > Apologies, it looks like we don't have any targets for installing > `libunwind.h` header (or any other headers from `libunwind` project for that > matter). I think this means we use `libunwind.h` only for building > libunwind+libcxxabi libraries, and there's no need to explicitly adjust > `libunwind.h` header as it is not used from outside as-is. Hope this makes > sense. > > OK to commit? Sorry for the diversion. Ah, ok. LGTM then! Jon > / Asiri http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
