cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/InitPreprocessor.cpp:677
//Builder.defineMacro("__cpp_aggregate_paren_init", "201902L");
- Builder.defineMacro("__cpp_concepts", "201907L");
+ Builder.defineMacro("__cpp_concepts", "202002L");
Builder.defineMacro("__cpp_conditional_explicit", "201806L");
----------------
royjacobson wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Does any of the not-yet-implemented bits (including from the DRs) impact
> > the ability to use conditionally trivial special member functions? If so,
> > we might want to be careful about aggressively bumping this value. (It's
> > more palatable for us to come back and bump the value later than it is for
> > us to claim we implement something fully when we know we don't -- the goal
> > of the feature test macros is so that users don't have to resort to
> > compiler version checks, which is what users have to use when they fall
> > into that "not fully implemented" space.)
> I don't think they're very significant, and the benefits of enabling it seem
> large enough for me - for example, std::expected works with libstdc++ and
> passes their unit tests but is gated by this macro.
>
> We still have a non-trivial amount of concept bugs to go over, but I support
> enabling this.
>
I think it's better to be conservative, It's the lesser of two not great
options.
I'm hoping we can get to fix the issues in the clang 16 cycle , but in the
meantime we should not claim conformance if we are not, in fact, conforming.
================
Comment at: clang/www/cxx_status.html:930
<td><a href="https://wg21.link/p0848r3";>P0848R3</a></td>
- <td rowspan="1" class="none" align="center">No</td>
+ <td rowspan="1" class="unreleased" align="center">Clang 16 <a
href="#p0848">(12)</a></td>
</tr>
----------------
royjacobson wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > FWIW, the way we've started handling this in recent history is to use
> > "partial" and a details tag instead of a footnote, as in:
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/www/cxx_status.html#L915.
> It felt a bit too long of an explanation to put in the tiny table box, but I
> don't feel very strongly about it either way.
I agree with Aaron.
I think it's better to be consistent, the column resize when the details are
expanded.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128619/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128619
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
