[cfe-dev] math.h on Windows

[John Thompson]

I'm terribly sorry!  In builtins.c I accidentally commited some experimental
changes I added after making the patch, making that test fail.  I've
commited the fix.

-John

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:40 PM, John Thompson <
john.thompson.jtsoftware at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Doug,
>
>
>> _Complex is currently a keyword in every mode. We could make it only be a
>> keyword in C99 or GNU mode, then make sure that neither of these modes is
>> turned on by default when Clang is built with VC++. That probably makes
>> sense, since VC++ doesn't support C99 or many GNU extensions anyway.
>>
>> We can always force tests into specific modes (turning off Microsoft
>> extensions, turning on GNU extensions or C99, whatever), rather than trying
>> to work around problems that are unlikely to show up in code that compiles
>> with VC++.
>
>
> How would you collectively force the tests?
>
> I'm kinda feeling that since we're down to just 21 failing tests,
> and _Complex isn't a problem with VC 9.0, we could probably punt on it for
> now, and see how it goes with the rest of the tests.  But let me know if you
> want me to persue this.
>
>
>
>> What is the actual issue with the redefinition of wchar_t? Are they
>> creating a typedef of wchar_t in their headers? Does the VC++ compiler
>> implicitly define _WCHAR_T_DEFINED?
>>
>
> This occurs in a few headers:
>
> #ifndef _WCHAR_T_DEFINED
> typedef unsigned short wchar_t;
> #define _WCHAR_T_DEFINED
> #endif
>
> The enclosed wchar_t_fix2.patch seems to fix both the wchar_t issue, and
> another one I ran into with VC++ headers.  I was side-tracked a bit with
> errors on wchar_t I didn't understand, until I realized that wchar_t was
> only a C++ keyword.
>
> I also ran into some new errors with the VC 9.0 headers on some #pragma's.
> Defining _CRT_SECURE_CPP_OVERLOAD_SECURE_NAMES avoids them, though it's a
> bit of a hack.  This symbol prevents the definition of some macros, some of
> which have errors, for example on __pragma statements like this:
>
> __pragma(warning(push))
>
> This is a Microsoft extension not currently supported, right?  It seems
> kind of useful for macros.
>
> You mentioned that the Targets.cpp was probably not the right place for the
> defines, so I moved them to InitPreprocessor.cpp.  Is this the right place?
>
> Also, could someone look at the enclosed patch for stdint.h?  This also
> fixes some failing tests, since VC++ doesn't have stdint.h.  Who is point on
> this?
>
> I can check in the patches you approve.
>
> -John
>
>



-- 
John Thompson
John.Thompson.JTSoftware at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20091015/0bb2e11d/attachment.html>