OK.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Since the fix for PR c++/80955 any suffix on a string literal that
> begins with an underscore is assumed to be a user-defined literal
> suffix, not a macro. This assumption is invalid for a suffix beginning
> with two underscores, bec
On 27 February 2018 at 16:59, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 February 2018 at 16:49, Tim Song wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> Since the fix for PR c++/80955 any suffix on a string literal that
>>> begins with an underscore is assumed to be a user-defined
On 27 February 2018 at 16:49, Tim Song wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> Since the fix for PR c++/80955 any suffix on a string literal that
>> begins with an underscore is assumed to be a user-defined literal
>> suffix, not a macro. This assumption is invalid
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Since the fix for PR c++/80955 any suffix on a string literal that
> begins with an underscore is assumed to be a user-defined literal
> suffix, not a macro. This assumption is invalid for a suffix beginning
> with two underscores, because
Since the fix for PR c++/80955 any suffix on a string literal that
begins with an underscore is assumed to be a user-defined literal
suffix, not a macro. This assumption is invalid for a suffix beginning
with two underscores, because such names are reserved and can't be used
for UDLs anyway. Checki
