I've been following this discussion and it seems that:
1. upstream is not interested making the library support < c++11
2. finding the correct "max_align_t" is not obvious, but the library wants to
3. "max_align_t" should not be exposed to < c++11
Given the above constraints, the simplest solution to move forward seems to be:
1. sed -i -e s/max_align_t/__max_align_t/g *.h
2. edit the file where the typedef is defined and expose "max_align_t" if you are
compiling the library or if >= c++11
I don't see what all the fuss is about.
christos
> On Mar 10, 2020, at 7:30 AM, Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On 09.03.2020 18:09, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 01:16:58PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> Upstream libc++ maintainers are against patching libc++.
>>
>> I'm buffled how you are arriving at this conclusion. Let me reiterate:
>> STOP MESSING UP THE TREE.
>>
>> Joerg
>>
>
> I'm sorry to come with these conclusions. I checked that the formal
> code owner (according to llvm/CODE_OWNERS.TXT) for libc++ is Marshall
> Clow (mclow), but he is not a very active in the development process and
> we are used to collaborate with other developers in the tree that review
> and feedback our patches (especially EricWF).
>
>
> <sanitizer.log>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP