aaron.ballman added a comment. In D146187#4201910 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146187#4201910>, @cor3ntin wrote:
> In D146187#4201905 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146187#4201905>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D146187#4201223 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146187#4201223>, @ChuanqiXu >> wrote: >> >>>> but we don't define __cpp_impl_coroutine: >>>> http://eel.is/c++draft/tab:cpp.predefined.ft >>> >>> We defined `__cpp_impl_coroutine`. And `__cpp_coroutines` is for >>> Coroutines TS. I forgot to remove this too. I'll handle it in a separate >>> patch. >> >> Thanks for handling the TS bits, but what am I misunderstanding here: >> https://godbolt.org/z/KdrM713r5 ? > > Hahaha. > For some reason - i should ask why to Tim Song one day - the html version of > the standard has weird injected non breaking spaces after underscores, you > got bit by that > https://godbolt.org/z/1ceKfbTPc 😱😱😱 Wow, thank you, that was not something I'd have figured out on my own for quite a while! Ugh, that does sort of change the calculus for whether we do or don't claim support on Windows. If removing the definition of that macro on Windows causes significant code breakage, that would be a reason we should leave it defined. But do we have evidence of that? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146187/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146187 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
