aaron.ballman 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");
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> royjacobson wrote:
> > erichkeane wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > cor3ntin wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > We still have a non-trivial amount of concept bugs to go over, but I
> > > > > support enabling this.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should specify the updated macro value only after we think
> > > > concepts have no known major issues with them. (Unknown issues happen
> > > > and there's not much we can do about them, this is more that we
> > > > shouldn't specify that we conform to a particular feature test macro
> > > > when we knowingly still don't have it right yet.)
> > > Yeah, I don't think we can set this until we can at least compile a basic
> > > libstdc++ ranges use, which the deferred instantiation still holds up.
> > > That would be my 'bare minimum' test for whether we can set that.
> > But we're already defining the `__cpp_concepts` macro, even with the
> > current known bugs. The version bump, introduced by
> > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2493r0.html is
> > specifically about the conditionally trivial SMFs paper.
> >
> > We can decide that we want the version bump to mean 'no more known concept
> > bugs in clang' instead. But that would extend the meaning of the macro and
> > would be confusing to users who want to rely on the documented, intended
> > meaning of the version.
> >
> > Also I think telling library writers 'this feature works now, but we didn't
> > set its feature test macro' will make them use more compiler version
> > checks, not less.
> The feature test macros aren't supposed to mean "I support the feature from
> the paper that updated it". They are intended to mean "I support the feature
> from the paper that updated it AND everything before it".
>
> I don't believe we need to be bug-free, but something as extreme as "we can't
> compile a large number of uses of concepts because we don't implement a
> central design consideration" (which, btw, was clarified in Core after the
> 2019 date IIRC) means we shouldn't be updating this.
> But we're already defining the __cpp_concepts macro, even with the current
> known bugs.
FWIW, I consider that a bug. We should have never defined this macro in the
first place -- we're not there yet on the base feature.
> I don't believe we need to be bug-free, but something as extreme as "we can't
> compile a large number of uses of concepts because we don't implement a
> central design consideration" (which, btw, was clarified in Core after the
> 2019 date IIRC) means we shouldn't be updating this.
+1
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
