[PATCH] D48892: [libc++] Replace uses of _LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE by _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY

[Davide Italiano via llvm-commits]

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:49 AM Davide Italiano via llvm-commits
<llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via
> Phabricator <reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > dexonsmith added a comment.
> >
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48892#1153473, @davide wrote:
> >
> > > The lldb bot started failing very recently and the blamelist hints at this change.
> > >
> > > http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/lldb-cmake/7777/
> > >
> > > Can you please take a look?
> > >
> > > For your convenience, this is failing building LibCxx testcases with a linker error:
> > >
> > >   Build Command Output:
> > >   Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
> > >     "std::__1::__vector_base_common<true>::__vector_base_common()", referenced from:
> > >         std::__1::__vector_base<int, std::__1::allocator<int> >::__vector_base() in main.o
> > >         std::__1::__vector_base<std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> >, std::__1::allocator<std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > > >::__vector_base() in main.o
> > >   ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
> > >   clang-7: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
> > >   make: *** [a.out] Error 1
> > >
> >
> >
> > Interesting.  The failing jobs all have things like this:
> >
> >   #include <string>
> >   #ifdef _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
> >   #undef _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
> >   #endif
> >   #define _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
> >   #include <map>
> >   #include <vector>
> >
> > We should revert to green, but... why is LLDB doing that?
>
> FWIW, I don't think there's any really good reason for this. The
> original test was committed with this `VISIBILITY` dance but the
> commit message doesn't really contain any informations.
> I guess I'm going just to spin a build locally, see whether it sticks
> and remove the offending lines instead of reverting Louis commit.
>
> I'll follow up here.
>

Actually, never mind, I realized you just reverted this.

--
Davide