Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/InitPreprocessor.cpp:593-594
+ // C++2b features.
+ if (LangOpts.CPlusPlus2b)
+ Builder.defineMacro("__cpp_size_t_suffix", "202011L");
if (LangOpts.Char8)
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> AntonBikineev wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Because we allow this as an extension in all C++ modes, should this be
> > > enabled always rather than gated on C++2b?
> > I was also wondering about this. I've checked that we also do the same for
> > other feature macros, such as __cpp_binary_literals, which is defined for
> > -std>=c++14 while at the same time is allowed as an extension before C++14.
> > Therefore I decided to mimic the behaviour.
> Thanks for checking on that! I think that seems defensible enough. :-)
Btw, thus far libc++ has tended to make the opposite choice: for example,
libc++ defines `__cpp_lib_variant == 202102` in all modes, because the
programmer conceivably might be depending on that macro to make some decision,
so we want to make sure it reflects the specific semantics that we implement.
(For `__cpp_binary_literals` specifically, I agree it doesn't really matter
because nobody's going to be making decisions based on the value of this macro.)
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D99290#inline-934563 (D96385, D97394) for previous
discussions on the libc++ side.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99456/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99456
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
