[PATCH] D33741: [libc++] Undef min/max in test_macros.h
EricWF abandoned this revision. EricWF added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741#769421, @CaseyCarter wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741#769381, @EricWF wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741#769371, @STL_MSFT wrote: > > > > > I haven't seen min/max test failures, probably because our CRT/STL > > > headers never drag in Windows.h. > > > > > > Ah, that makes sense. Libc++ currently does although the plan is to fix > > that eventually. :-S > > > Are you aware that Windows.h won't define `min` and `max` if you define > `NOMINMAX` before including it? You could solve the problem by adding > `-DNOMINMAX` to your test compile parameters. I want to avoid modifying how Windows.h is included in the libc++ headers, in case people actually depend on that macro. However passing -DNOMINMAX as a test compiler parameter is a much better solution. Thanks! https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D33741: [libc++] Undef min/max in test_macros.h
CaseyCarter added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741#769381, @EricWF wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741#769371, @STL_MSFT wrote: > > > I haven't seen min/max test failures, probably because our CRT/STL headers > > never drag in Windows.h. > > > Ah, that makes sense. Libc++ currently does although the plan is to fix that > eventually. :-S Are you aware that Windows.h won't define `min` and `max` if you define `NOMINMAX` before including it? You could solve the problem by adding `-DNOMINMAX` to your test compile parameters. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D33741: [libc++] Undef min/max in test_macros.h
EricWF added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741#769371, @STL_MSFT wrote: > I haven't seen min/max test failures, probably because our CRT/STL headers > never drag in Windows.h. Ah, that makes sense. Libc++ currently does although the plan is to fix that eventually. :-S > I have no objection to undeffing min/max although I wouldn't do this myself > (it creates order dependencies which I think are totally evil). Yeah, the header order is super evil. Agreed. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D33741: [libc++] Undef min/max in test_macros.h
STL_MSFT added a comment. I haven't seen min/max test failures, probably because our CRT/STL headers never drag in Windows.h. I have no objection to undeffing min/max although I wouldn't do this myself (it creates order dependencies which I think are totally evil). https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D33741: [libc++] Undef min/max in test_macros.h
EricWF created this revision. After changing libc++ to push/pop the min/max macros on Windows we have a bunch of new test failures, caused by tests using min/max. I would like to use test_macros.h to undefine it. Would this work for you? How have you been dealing with these failures? https://reviews.llvm.org/D33741 Files: test/support/test_macros.h Index: test/support/test_macros.h === --- test/support/test_macros.h +++ test/support/test_macros.h @@ -223,6 +223,14 @@ } #endif +#if defined(min) +#undef min +#endif + +#if defined(max) +#undef max +#endif + #if defined(__GNUC__) #pragma GCC diagnostic pop #endif Index: test/support/test_macros.h === --- test/support/test_macros.h +++ test/support/test_macros.h @@ -223,6 +223,14 @@ } #endif +#if defined(min) +#undef min +#endif + +#if defined(max) +#undef max +#endif + #if defined(__GNUC__) #pragma GCC diagnostic pop #endif ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
