Re: [patch] Define __CORRECT_ISO_CPP_STRING_H_PROTO correctly for Clang

[Brooks Moses <bmoses at google dot com>]

Ping?

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Brooks Moses <bmoses@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> What's the logic behind the GCC version check in the first place?  Is it
>> about compiler (language) features, or about corresponding support in the
>> standard C++ library?  If the former, do you need a Clang version check?
>> If the latter, do you need a check on what version of libstdc++ or libc++
>> might be used with Clang?
>
> This appears to be about corresponding support in libstdc++.  The
> original patch was actually only posted to gcc-patches@, here [1]:
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg01457.html
> Prior to the patch, libstdc++'s cstring provided the C++ declarations
> of the string.h functions.  After the patch, the libstdc++ cstring
> only provides the C++ string.h declarations if these macros are not
> defined, so as to avoid conflicting with glibc's string.h
> declarations.
>
> In libc++, the corresponding declarations are guarded by a simple
> "!defined(__GLIBC__)" check, and have been since the very early days
> of the project; thus this should be safe for that as well [2].
>
> In principle, the correct solution might be replacing the GCC version
> check with a check on __GLIBCXX__ and _LIBCPP_VERSION.  However,
> __GLIBCXX__ is not monotonic with the GCC version[3] so this would be
> a very messy check, and there's the issue of getting the __GLIBCXX__
> value in a way that is guaranteed not to introduce circular header
> dependencies in libstdc++ or any other C++ library.  So unfortunately
> I don't think that's workable in practice.
>
> I brought this up with the Clang development mailing list, and the
> answer I got there was that "In practice, any of the solutions is
> probably fine: glibc gets upgraded along with the system, which
> implies a newer gcc, which implies clang will find a newer libstdc++"
> [4].
>
> Thus, I'd like to go with Andrew Pinski's idea of using a
> "__cplusplus>=199711L" check, and use the legacy behavior (check for
> GCC of 4.4 or later) otherwise.  As I explain in the code comment,
> this basically assumes that C++ compilers that claim to fully support
> C++98 are using a standard-conforming C++ standard library, which
> seems pretty reasonable.  Clang has been providing an appropriate
> value of __cplusplus since May of last year.
>
> The revised patch is attached.  I've tested it by compiling a file
> that includes the headers and checks the macro values, with GCC 4.6,
> GCC 4.8, and a recent build of Clang, and I confirmed that the macros
> are defined as expected in all cases.  I've attached the test program
> as well.
>
> Is this version ok to commit?
>
> Thanks,
> - Brooks
>
>
> [1] For archival purposes: There was also a bugfix on it sent to libc-hacker@:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-hacker/2009-01/msg00013.html
>
> [2]: Discussion of the libc++ cstring prototypes here:
> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/include/cstring
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=7983
>
> [3]: See list of __GLIBCXX__ values over the years:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html
>
> [4] This quote is from email from Eli Friedman:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2013-August/031657.html
>
> [5] Clang generally followed GCC practice for __cplusplus values;
> discussion and patch here:
> http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/Value-of-cplusplus-in-GNU-modes-td3957527.html
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?revision=156113&view=revision