http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56454
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-26 07:57:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Hm... Ok... > Although there is a risk that this way we may never reach a decision. > Is there a precedent of solving issues this way? > > How about __has_feature, by the way? _has_feature is a useless feature considering preprocessed macros exists. Maybe the clang folks want an unified way of finding if a feature exists but that is up to clang. We don't. Also the attribute renaming is a different story and really should never happen once it is out in the wild which it is now. That is the point I am trying to make once you have it out there it should stay even if it is a bad name. We have bad names for options and only change them in the rare case (-Wconversion was the only rare case that comes to mind).
