[llvm-dev] Quality of LLVM headers

[Paweł Bylica via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 00:32 James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:

> Yes, that check is now incorrectly firing even when it's not necessary to
> #define those. It should probably be replaced with something like this:
>
> #if !defined(INT8_C) || !defined(INT8_MAX)
> #error "Your inttypes.h didn't define needed macros. (Are you using an old
> libc? Might need to define __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS and __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS)"
> #endif
>

http://reviews.llvm.org/D21553


>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Paweł Bylica <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 21:07 Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>>> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:05:18PM +0000, Paweł Bylica via llvm-dev
>>> wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016, 17:57 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at bec.de> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:24:22PM +0000, Paweł Bylica via llvm-dev
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > > Hi LLVM,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I want to complain a bit about the quality of the code included
>>> in the
>>> >> > > public LLVM headers. For projects that depend on LLVM is really
>>> hard to
>>> >> > > just include LLVM headers not to trigger tons of warnings.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Moreover, the is this issue that you have to define
>>> __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS
>>> >> > and
>>> >> > > __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS everywhere just to include single
>>> DataTypes.h.
>>> >> > > Strangely, it seems to be required only when compiling with
>>> clang, not
>>> >> > with
>>> >> > > GCC.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Can we do anything to improve the situation?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I have just one idea, to add unittests that only include public
>>> headers
>>> >> > > with higher compiler restrictions than for LLVM code in .cpp
>>> files.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Get a system with C++11 compliant system headers.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> What do you mean exactly? How is this related?
>>> >
>>> > __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS and co are requirements by C99 superseded by C++11.
>>> > If your system headers correctly implement C++11, you don't need them.
>>>
>>> Apparently DataTypes.h does the following:
>>>
>>>   #if !defined(__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS)
>>>   # error "Must #define __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS before #including
>>> Support/DataTypes.h"
>>>   #endif
>>>
>>> I'm guessing this is what Paweł is talking about. Maybe this is an
>>> obsolete check from before we required a C++11 compliant host compiler?
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. This is required to have macros like ULONG_MAX available in
>> DataTypes.h. I wander if that requirement can be replaced with something
>> less intrusive for projects depending on LLVM.
>>
>> I can work on changes, but need at least a clue that has a chance to be
>> accepted.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160621/d4de7f5d/attachment-0001.html>