We've stopped doing it in libc++ for a while now because these names
would end up rotting as we move things around and copy/paste stuff.
This cleans up all the existing files so as to stop the spreading
as people copy-paste headers around.
to reflect the new license. These used slightly different spellings that
defeated my regular expressions.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351648
Summary:
We never actually mean to always inline a function -- all the uses of
the macro I could find are actually attempts to control the visibility
of symbols. This is better described by _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY, which
is actually always defined the same.
This change is orthogonal to the decision of what we're actually going
to do with _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY -- it just simplifies things by
having one canonical way of doing things.
Note that this commit had originally been applied in r336369 and then
reverted in r336382 because of unforeseen problems. Both of these problems
have now been fixed.
Reviewers: EricWF, mclow.lists
Subscribers: christof, dexonsmith, erikvanderpoel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48892
llvm-svn: 336866
This reverts commit r336369. The commit had two problems:
1. __pbump was marked as _LIBCPP_EXTERN_TEMPLATE_INLINE_VISIBILITY instead of
_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY, which lead to two symbols being added in the
dylib and the check-cxx-abilist failing.
2. The LLDB tests started failing because they undefine
`_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY`. I need to figure out why they do that and
fix the tests before we can go forward with this change.
llvm-svn: 336382
Summary:
We never actually mean to always inline a function -- all the uses of
the macro I could find are actually attempts to control the visibility
of symbols. This is better described by _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY, which
is actually always defined the same.
This change is orthogonal to the decision of what we're actually going
to do with _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY -- it just simplifies things by
having one canonical way of doing things.
Reviewers: EricWF
Subscribers: christof, llvm-commits, dexonsmith, erikvanderpoel, mclow.lists
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48892
llvm-svn: 336369
The name _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS_ONLY is no longer accurate because both
_LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS and _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS_ONLY expand to
__attribute__((__type_visibility__)) with Clang. The only remaining difference
is that _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS_ONLY can be applied to templates whereas
_LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS cannot (due to dllimport/dllexport not being allowed on
templates).
This patch renames _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS_ONLY to _LIBCPP_TEMPLATE_VIS.
llvm-svn: 291035
Nikolas Klauser