[LLVMdev] patch for portability

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Wed Dec 2 16:51:15 PST 2009

On Dec 2, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Howard Hinnant wrote:

> I've completed a survey of llvm for unnecessary dependencies on  
> libstdc++, and on conflicts with the upcoming C++0X standard, and am  
> recommending several changes in the enclosed patch (created with svn  
> diff).

Thanks, applied here:

I fixed a few lines to stay in 80 cols.


> Here is a summary of the patch:
> ---
> #include <cstdlib> added to LinkAllVMCore.h and  
> LinkAllCodegenComponents.h to declare std::getenv.
> Changed next(...) to llvm::next(...) in many places.  I only changed  
> those instances which were actually required to avoid ambiguity.  I  
> left other calls to next() unqualified.  I do not have strong  
> feelings about how this particular situation should be fixed, but  
> this solution seems the simplest to me.  I do not anticipate a fix  
> from the standards committee on this matter, though if anyone would  
> like to pursue this course of action, I can certainly help with that.
> #include "X86MachinefunctionInfo.h" added to  
> X86COFFMachineModuleInfo.h to make X86MachineFunctionInfo a complete  
> class before it is used to instantiate std::map.
> #include <ostream> added to TargetData.cpp to bring these formatting  
> prototypes into scope.
> ---
> -Howard
> <patch.patch>_______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list