Why not give the wierdo __has_include__ an unspellable name?
('builtinhasinclude') and take care constructing the
__has_include macro expansion to have a token with exactly that
spelling?
Wouldn't that break -dM rather horribly?
pah!
However, the following thinks __DATE__ is a defined ma
* Nathan Sidwell:
> On 1/10/19 9:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> Can we remove __has_include__?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> Its availability results in code which is needlessly non-portable
>>> because for some reason, people write __has_incl
* Jakub Jelinek:
> Because the magic builtin is a preprocessor builtin, kind of macro,
> so you can't have a normal macro with the same name.
Could we turn this kind-of-macro into something that can be tested using
#ifdef?
Thanks,
Florian
On 1/10/19 9:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Can we remove __has_include__?
No.
Its availability results in code which is needlessly non-portable
because for some reason, people write __has_include__ instead of
__has_include. (I do
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:35:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jakub Jelinek:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Can we remove __has_include__?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> Its availability results in code which is needlessly non-portable
> >> because for some
* Jakub Jelinek:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Can we remove __has_include__?
>
> No.
>
>> Its availability results in code which is needlessly non-portable
>> because for some reason, people write __has_include__ instead of
>> __has_include. (I don't think
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Can we remove __has_include__?
No.
> Its availability results in code which is needlessly non-portable
> because for some reason, people write __has_include__ instead of
> __has_include. (I don't think there is any difference.)
_
