- User Since
- Jun 26 2014, 12:44 PM (290 w, 4 d)
Sat, Jan 18
Does this header actually implement any of the V2 specification?
Fri, Jan 17
Committed as a8a9c8e0a11abc9ed4ed78fed528334371fedf87.
I don't know that you needed to duplicate all the tests, but this works for me.
There are a couple of places that now duplicate the body of __init_long. Would it make sense to deduplicate that code in some way?
The weird template test case might is derived from an old failure that I believe was addressed in Clang, but regression tests are fine by me.
The macro expansion fix is correct and correctly tested.
Thu, Jan 16
Can you open a bug somewhere and then add a // FIXME or TODO comment explaining that C11 is what we eventually want?
Wed, Jan 15
We should backport this into the LLVM 10 release.
@hans Is that OK by you?
I've recommitted the libc++ changes. I believe each of the build failures mentioned here has been addressed.
Please inform me if you still hit errors.
Committed as 58c7fa5adeb218737f10ffeaeed0d9eb21f4a2f0
Please reply on the libc++-commits email before reverting next time. These comments are not easily noticeable.
Thu, Jan 9
Update and merge with master.
Tue, Jan 7
Committed as 0c5102bd939131b27105b74e73fc25b90207ef36
I think this is fine as is. So long as you've looked at it.
Dec 20 2019
Is this change against head? because I thought I already fixed this.
Dec 16 2019
Committed as a53534a9f6404d1727fd6e9b13b6dc3089523e10.
Committed as 0fa118a9da6786a0aaf81e309d8c3b38bc5f61dd.
Dec 13 2019
Dec 12 2019
LGTM once the changes land. Let's shut this warning up.
LGTM given the use of = default and = delete.
Dec 11 2019
Nov 18 2019
Why was this committed without review?
Nov 17 2019
Nov 16 2019
Nov 15 2019
What's the difference between _LIBCPP_HARDEN and simply defining _LIBCPP_DEBUG=0? That should turn on _LIBCPP_ASSERT in the same cases.
Sorry, I meant to LGTM this formally last time.
Nov 13 2019
Since the __libcpp_is_nan_or_builtin hacks are no longer needed (they can directly call isnan), could you please send a separate change to remove it?
OK, this LGTM.
Nov 8 2019
Oct 25 2019
Please correct the patch description and title to be clearer and not all on one line.
Oct 24 2019
This test case already passes.
Oct 14 2019
Oct 10 2019
Are the lock free algorithms used by this implementation published somewhere? That would give me a lot more confidence in their correctness.
Please see the Adding a new header section of NOTE.txt (https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/NOTES.TXT#L19-L29)
Oct 8 2019
Oct 4 2019
threading support is required to implement a conforming standard library. if we don't have it we're non-conforming.
Oct 3 2019
Sep 30 2019
Sep 25 2019
Sep 24 2019
Can you use clang-format instead of custom formatting?
Sep 19 2019
Sep 18 2019
I don't see any changes to tests. are the tests already sufficient or should we enable the c+ +11 tests?
Sep 14 2019
Sep 13 2019
How were the performance benefits measured? Are they visible in the existing benchmarks?