rsmith added a comment. In D58149#1397499 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58149#1397499>, @ldionne wrote:
> In D58149#1397390 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58149#1397390>, @jfb wrote: > > > In D58149#1397382 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58149#1397382>, @efriedma > > wrote: > > > > > Formally, I don't think C11 is a normative reference for C++11 or C++14, > > > only C++17 (see [intro.refs] in the standard). > > > > > You're right. I don't mind submitting a patch that enables it for C++17 and > above only if that's what you want, however... > > > Right, this was changed in wg21.link/p0063r3 > > That being said, we *can* offer these C11 features as extensions IIUC. > > ... I think it's also fine to have it in C++11. In C++11, this is technically valid: #define FLT_TRUE_MIN 1 #include <cfloat> #if FLT_TRUE_MIN != 1 #error float.h redefined my macro #endif and likewise #include <cfloat> constexpr float FLT_TRUE_MIN = 0.0001f; ... but both will fail with this patch, so providing these macros is technically non-conforming. I don't know to what extent we should care about such uses, though. We generally leak additional non-conforming names from the system `<*.h>` headers into the user's namespace if the libc headers put them there. This would, however, probably be the first time that we put them there ourselves. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58149/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58149 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
