- User Since
- May 15 2015, 4:56 PM (318 w, 6 d)
May 21 2021
Nov 30 2020
yeah, https://reviews.llvm.org/D90188 sounds better to me too.
Nov 17 2020
Nov 12 2020
Sep 18 2020
Aug 24 2020
sorry about the breakage... thanks for testing on real hardware!
Aug 21 2020
Address vvereschaka's comment.
Aug 20 2020
Aug 18 2020
(sorry, didn't see these comments until after i'd git pushed. i've failed to set up gmail filters so i see the mail i need to see without drowning in thousands of mails i don't need to see :-( )
Jun 25 2020
clang-format the new test (but leave the other 30kloc).
Jun 11 2020
Use actual upper bound.
Apr 10 2020
Nov 11 2019
actually, it looks like clang is inlining the code for all the is*_l
functions anyway. you're paying for the indirection on
strcoll_l/strxfrm_l/wcscoll_l/wcsxfrm_l, but no one should be using
Nov 7 2019
honestly, if it was me, i'd keep all these inlines even for current releases: inlining a call to the underlying function saves you a layer of useless cruft at runtime. (the Android "implementations" are just one-liners that drop the extra argument and call the underlying function, just like these inlines.)
Nov 6 2019
Jul 16 2019
i assume the idea here is "all libc++ mutexes are covered by RAII anyway, so there's no value to the error checking"?
Sep 19 2018
yeah, we always used the low numbers internally.
Jul 14 2015
not really though --- i think you're getting that from libgcc. so
although short term you don't need to add this stuff to compiler-rt to
test, it will be necessary for anyone not using libgcc. (like us, at
some point in the future.)