[llvm-testresults] Red bots at night, buildczar's delight?

[Chandler Carruth]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:23 PM, dalej <dalej at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> Given that we're hacking around this header file bug in the compiler,
>> don't we have to allow the reverse ordering anyway?
>> #include <stddef.h>
>> extern void* malloc(size_t);
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>
>
> I think so, but I worry about further hacks. =[ Seems likely we have no
> choice.
>

For reference, I'm now convinced this isn't a good idea. GCC actually
rejects the construct you propose, and POSIX is pretty clear that this type
of redeclaring isn't allowed: 'malloc' is in its reserved set of identifiers
that can be implemented via function-like macros. Clang shouldn't get *more*
lax than GCC here, and we don't want to start forward declaring these
functions.

I'm going to revert my change to mm_malloc.h, and use __STDC_HOSTED__ to
guard our only inclusion of it. I'm also going to temporarily remove it from
the regression test suite while I discuss w/ Clang devs in general whether
the un-hosted requirement for the test suite is going to remain feasible.
Sorry again for the noise here. =[
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-testresults/attachments/20101121/438a2c3e/attachment.html>