Re: [PATCH] D24991: Inline hot functions in libcxx shared_ptr implementation.

[Marshall Clow via cfe-commits]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Sebastian Pop  wrote:

> sebpop added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24991#565861, @EricWF wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24991#565715, @mclow.lists wrote:
> >
> > > How does this play with existing binaries?  Applications that expect
> these functions to exist in the dylib?
> >
> >
> > This patch is majorly ABI breaking, although we could probably find a
> formulation that wasn't.
>
>
> Eric, Marshall,
> any suggestions on how to fix the backwards compatibility issue?
>
>
The routine *has* to be in the dylib.
That being said, that doesn't mean that the version in the dylib must be
called.

I have an idea; it involves a macro that is sometimes "inline" and
sometimes not, and changes when you're building the library vs. when you're
just including the headers.

I'll play with that and put something up here.

-- Marshall
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: [PATCH] D24991: Inline hot functions in libcxx shared_ptr implementation.

[Andrey Khalyavin via cfe-commits]

halyavin added a subscriber: halyavin.


Comment at: libcxx/include/atomic_support.h:1
@@ +1,2 @@
+//===--===
+//

Non-standard include files in the main include directory must start with __ to 
avoid collisions with application headers.


Comment at: libcxx/include/atomic_support.h:1
@@ +1,2 @@
+//===--===
+//

halyavin wrote:
> Non-standard include files in the main include directory must start with __ 
> to avoid collisions with application headers.
Does anyone know why this header exists and atomic header can't be used 
instead? 


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D24991



___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits