[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D99615: [libc++] Improve generate_feature_test_macro_components.py.

[Mark de Wever via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

Mordante marked an inline comment as done.
Mordante added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/utils/generate_feature_test_macro_components.py:52
+#                    * `AVAILABILITY_DISABLE` macros defined in <__availability>.
+#                   It can't depend on <__config> since the test suite should
+#                   be portable. Using libc++ specific features will cause unit
----------------
curdeius wrote:
> This phrase is repeated just before the bullet list.
Thanks, fixed.


================
Comment at: libcxx/utils/generate_feature_test_macro_components.py:56-59
+#                   It's possible to use the `AVAILABILITY_DISABLE` macros of
+#                   <__availability> since it defines libc++ specific macros,
+#                   that aren't defined by other C++ standard library
+#                   implementations.
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Quuxplusone wrote:
> > Wonky English grammar here; also, this logic applies equally well to //any// libc++ header (that libc++ headers define things that aren't defined by other library implementations).
> > I think you should add a TODO and come back to this; i.e., take my suggested fix verbatim.
> > These macros were all introduced in @ldionne's D94983, btw.
> > 
> Ah, D94983 enlightens me that the `FTM` in these macro names stands specifically for "feature-test macro"!
> So I'd write it like this:
> ```
> # test_suite_guard  An optional string field. When this field is provided,
> #                   `libcxx_guard` must also be provided. This field is used
> #                   only to generate the unit tests for the feature-test macros.
> #                   It can't depend on macros defined in <__config> because the
> #                   `test/std/` parts of the test suite are intended to be
> #                   portable to any C++ standard library implementation, not
> #                   just libc++. It may depend on
> #                    * macros defined by the compiler itself,
> #                    * macros generated by CMake, or
> #                   In some cases we add `&& !defined(_LIBCPP_AVAILABILITY_DISABLE_FTM_...)`
> #                   in order to make libc++ pass the tests on OSX; see D94983.
> ```
> 
> Anyway, I still say ship it and handle the cleanup post-commit.
> 
> Notice that you've got two copies of `libcxx_guard` now; delete the second copy.
I like your text, will change `CMake, or` to `CMake.`
As suggested I'll then land this patch.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D99615/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99615