george.burgess.iv added a comment. > Why not just use __has_feature(overloadable_unmarked) or similar?
My impression was that `__has_feature` was was for larger features than tweaks to attributes. If this would be an appropriate use of `__has_feature`, though, I'm happy to keep things simple. I'll update the other review with `__has_feature`. If it goes in with that, I'll abandon this. Thanks! ================ Comment at: docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:176 +For example, clang's ``overloadable`` attribute has existed since before Clang +3.5, but in Clang 5.0 it gained was modified to support so-called "unmarked +overloads". One can use ``__has_attribute_enhancement`` to query whether clang ---------------- ahatanak wrote: > Do you need "gained" here? Good catch :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D33904 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
