Mordante marked 3 inline comments as done. Mordante added a comment. In D149553#4313211 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149553#4313211>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D149553#4312788 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149553#4312788>, @Mordante > wrote: > >> In D149553#4310478 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149553#4310478>, >> @aaron.ballman wrote: >> >>> Thank you for working on this! The Clang changes are mostly all good, but I >>> think we should hold off on changing the value of `__cplusplus` for the >>> moment as it's not set in stone in the standard yet (I thought it was >>> though, so I'm checking with the editor). >> >> I noticed the same and I was wondering whether I should contact the editor. >> I noticed some approved papers also have not been merged yet. (These papers >> are still open issues in the paper repository.) >> >> I'll wait a few days to see whether the draft gets updated otherwise I >> revert the macro change. >> >> I would be very surprised if the macro gets a different value, that's why I >> already bumped it. > > I heard back from the editor yesterday and he said that the macro would be > replaced with an appropriate value for the DIS, and that he hopes to ensure > that value is published in the next meeting mailing (which would be roughly > May 15). So I think we can either wait until that mailing comes out and see > if it has a concrete value to land these changes, or we can land everything > but the macro value changes and deal with that in a follow up (this might be > easier due to rebasing woes given how large this patch is). Yes I created a new patch for that part. That patch is a lot easier to rebase than this one. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/InitPreprocessor.cpp:455 + if (LangOpts.CPlusPlus23) + Builder.defineMacro("__cplusplus", "202302L"); // [C++20] The integer literal 202002L. ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > I think this might still be premature. I noticed that the draft C++ standard > does not have this value set yet: > https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/main/source/config.tex#L6 > > I've emailed the editor to find out if that's a mistake (I am pretty sure > we're sending this off to PDTS at some point shortly). I've reverted this and similar parts. They are now in D149761. I will update that patch once editor made a release with the updated `__cplusplus` macro. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Parser/cxx2b-label.cpp:1 -// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx2b -std=c++2b -Wpre-c++2b-compat %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx23 -std=c++23 -Wpre-c++23-compat %s // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=expected,cxx20 -std=c++20 %s ---------------- ldionne wrote: > We could also consider renaming those files. I could do that but rather in a follow-up there are still files named like `clang/test/Parser/cxx0x-lambda-expressions.cpp` too. I'm not sure how much the Clang devs want to remove these code names. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149553/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149553 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
