================
@@ -501,7 +501,13 @@ <h2 id="c11">C11 implementation status</h2>
<tr>
<td>Wide function returns (alternate proposal)</td>
<td><a
href="https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1396.htm";>N1396</a></td>
- <td class="unknown" align="center">Unknown</td>
+ <td class="full" align="center">
+ <details><summary>Yes*</summary>
+ Clang conforms to this paper on all targets except 32-bit x86 without
+ SSE2. However, Clang does not claim conformance or intend to conform to
+ Annex F on that target, so we vacuously conform.
----------------
h-vetinari wrote:
The "or" IMO breaks the link to "does not" (spoken language is much more
fungible with operator precedence...), so I'd formulate this as `not X and not
Y`, rather than `not (X or Y)`. Also, I wouldn't call "support on all but one
niche target" to be "vacuous".
```suggestion
SSE2. However, Clang does not claim conformance (nor intends to conform)
to Annex F on that target, so overall we can still claim full
conformance.
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101214
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
