-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.4k
release/18.x: [libc++] Fix -Wgnu-include-next in stddef.h (#88214) #88419
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
@mordante What do you think about merging this PR to the release branch? |
@llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx Author: None (llvmbot) ChangesBackport 3c4b673 Requested by: @ldionne Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88419.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/libcxx/include/stddef.h b/libcxx/include/stddef.h
index 470b5408336c6d..1583e78e3739ba 100644
--- a/libcxx/include/stddef.h
+++ b/libcxx/include/stddef.h
@@ -26,6 +26,10 @@
#include <__config>
+#if !defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER)
+# pragma GCC system_header
+#endif
+
// Note: This include is outside of header guards because we sometimes get included multiple times
// with different defines and the underlying <stddef.h> will know how to deal with that.
#include_next <stddef.h>
@@ -33,10 +37,6 @@
#ifndef _LIBCPP_STDDEF_H
# define _LIBCPP_STDDEF_H
-# if !defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER)
-# pragma GCC system_header
-# endif
-
# ifdef __cplusplus
typedef decltype(nullptr) nullptr_t;
# endif
|
We should take this in LLVM 18 because it's a regression from #87374 |
Can we ignore this test failure? |
Yes, it's |
As reported in llvm#86843, we must have #pragma GCC system_header before we use #include_next, otherwise the compiler may not understand that we're in a system header and may issue a diagnostic for our usage of (cherry picked from commit 3c4b673)
Hi @ldionne (or anyone else). If you would like to add a note about this fix in the release notes (completely optional). Please reply to this comment with a one or two sentence description of the fix. |
I don't think a release note is necessary here because we introduced the "bug" and fixed it in the same point-release. So from the user's perspective there was no issue introduced. |
Backport 3c4b673
Requested by: @ldionne