This reverts r360271 (git commit a0933bd8ec)
There are concerns on the review that this breaks EFI builds and that
the transitive includes (sal.h) are actually heavy enough that we might
care.
llvm-svn: 360291
compatibility. This allows some applications developed with MSVC to
compile with clang without any extra changes.
Fixes: llvm.org/PR40789
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61646
llvm-svn: 360271
When building with modules enabled, we were defining max_align_t as a typedef
for a different anonymous struct type each time it was included, resulting in
an error if <stddef.h> is not covered by a module map and is included more than
once in the same modules-enabled compilation of C11 or C++11 code.
llvm-svn: 218931
This restores the original behaviour of -fmsc-version. The older option
remains as a mechanism for specifying the basic version information. A
secondary option, -fms-compatibility-version permits the user to specify an
extended version to the driver.
The new version takes the value as a dot-separated value rather than the
major * 100 + minor format that -fmsc-version format. This makes it easier to
specify the value as well as a more flexible manner for specifying the value.
Specifying both values is considered an error.
The older parameter is left solely as a driver option, which is normalised into
the newer parameter. This allows us to retain a single code path in the
compiler itself whilst preserving the semantics of the old parameter as well as
avoid having to determine which of two formats are being used by the invocation.
The test changes are due to the fact that the compiler no longer supports the
old option, and is a direct conversion to the new option.
llvm-svn: 213119
This started failing for me the last time someone modified the AST file
format. It would be nice if we could just have lit take care of the
module cache used during testing for us, but this helps in the meantime.
llvm-svn: 203511
Summary:
Our usual definition of max_align_t wouldn't match up with MSVC if it
was used in a template argument.
Reviewers: chandlerc, rsmith, rnk
Reviewed By: chandlerc
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2924
llvm-svn: 202911
This definition is not chosen idly. There is an unfortunate reality with
max_align_t -- the specific nature of its definition leaks into the ABI
almost immediately. Because it is part of C11 and C++11 it becomes
essential for it to match with other systems on that ABI. There is an
effort to discourage any further use of this construct as a consequence
-- using max_align_t introduces an immediate ABI problem. We can never
update it to have larger alignment even as the microarchitecture changes
to necessitate higher alignment. =/
The particular definition here exactly matches the ABI of GCC's chosen
::max_align_t definition, for better or worse. This was written with the
help of Richard Smith who was decoding the exact ABI implications of the
selected definition in GCC. Notably, in-register arguments are impacted
by the particular definition chosen. =/
No one is under the illusion that this is a "good" or "useful"
definition of max_align_t, and we are working with the standards
committee to specify a more useful interface to address this need.
llvm-svn: 201729
is no need to go through the driver indirection here, and it clutters
things up as dependencies can sneak in for specific things the driver is
doing.
llvm-svn: 191107
- We shouldn't even try to include stdint.h in hosted mode, as the dependency
on even parsing a platforms stdint.h might fail for some targets.
llvm-svn: 179723
Reid Kleckner