jfb added a comment. In D58149#1397532 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58149#1397532>, @rsmith wrote:
> 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. 🎻 ← tiny unicode violin for anyone this would break ☺️ 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
