On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 at 11:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 11:57:32AM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > > On 08/01/2025 11:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > +#ifndef _GLIBCXX26_CONSTEXPR > > > > +# if __cplusplus >= 202303L > > > Shouldn't that be 202400L instead? I mean that is what > > > -std=c++26/-std=gnu++26 predefines and has been historically what we've > > > been > > > using for next version. > > > I think clang++ also predefines 202400L. > > > > Fair enough, GCC documentation simply says "an unspecified value strictly > > larger than 202302L for the experimental languages enabled by -std=c++26 and > > -std=gnu++26", so I picked ... a value larger than 202302L. I can certainly > > change it for the historical reason, just let me know. > > This is libstdc++ patch, so I'll defer to Jonathan, both the decision and > review of the patch.
I agree with using 202400L, for consistency with the actual defined value, and because at a quick glance it's unclear whether 202303 is the value for C++23 or not. You have to know that 202302 is the real value to identify that this is "something later than C++23" whereas 202400 is more obvious.
