aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33904#778165, @george.burgess.iv wrote:
> > 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. I agree, this need seems more in line with `__has_feature` than adding a new feature testing macro. > Thanks! https://reviews.llvm.org/D33904 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
