fedor.sergeev added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34158#836026, @jyknight wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34158#827178, @joerg wrote:
> > I had a long discussion with James about this on IRC without reaching a 
> > clear consensus. I consider forcing this behavior on all targets to be a 
> > major bug. It should be opt-in and opt-in only:
> >
> > (1) The header name is not mandated by any standard. It is not in any 
> > namespace generally accepted as implementation-owned.
> This is a point. I didn't think it was a big deal, but if you want to argue a 
> different name should be used, that's a reasonable argument.
>  If we can get some agreement amongst other libc vendors to use some more 
> agreeable alternative name, and keep a fallback on linux-only for the 
> "stdc-predef.h" name, I'd consider that as a great success.

Perhaps not a big deal yet, but as I have recently described stdc-predef.h idea 
to Oracle Solaris libc/headers/compilers folks, they generally welcomed the 

>> (3) ...Most other platforms have a single canonical libc, libm and 
>> libpthread implementation and can as such directly define all the relevant 
>> macros directly in the driver.
> I don't think this is accurate. There's many platforms out there, and for 
> almost none of them do we have exact knowledge of the features of the libc 
> encoded into the compiler.

Solaris is a direct example of that...


cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to